-WHO  WROTE  IT- 
WHEN-WHERE~HOW 


HVLL 


DivisIoS  -B£h 
Section     '  '  '     '   * 


Mof^es^  Hull 


Our  Bible:  •=  =  =  = 

WHO  WROTE  IT?  : :  : 
When  =  Where  -  How? 
IS   IT  INFALLIBLE?    - 


MAY  S9  191P 


%fl6ICAL  St«\:*^ 


A  Voice  From 

The  Higher  Criticism, 


A  Few  Thoughts 

ON 

Other  Bibles. 0CO** 


'Prove  all  things,  hold  fast  that  which  is  good."     — PAUL. 


^ 


BY  HOSES  HULL. 


AuthoT  of  "Two  in  One,''    ''Encyclopedia  of  Biblical  Spirit- 
ualism,''   ''The  Spiritual  Alps,   and  How  we  Ascend 
Them,"   "Joan,    The    Medium,"    and    manj 
other    Works    on    Psychic    and 
Biblical  Questions. 

— § — § — § 5 — 5 


BUFFALO:  Moses  Hall  &  Co. 

CHICAGO:  J.  R.  Francis,  40  Loomls  Street, 

ULY  DALE,  N.  Y.:    Sunflower  Publishing  Company. 
—  1900. — 


Entered  accoramg  to  Act  ot  Congress, 
in  the  year  1900 

By    MOSES    HULL 
the  Office  of  the  Lil)rarian  of  Congress  at 
Washington.D.  C. 


TO  MATTIE  E.  HULL,  MY  FAITHFUL  COMPANION, 

WHO  FOR  NEARLY  THIRTY  YEARS 
HAS  BEEN  MY  "TRUE  Y^OKE-FELLOW"  IN  EVERY 

GOOD  work; 

who  has  been  my  counselor  in  matters  of 

business,  my  attendant  and  solace  in  hours  of 

affliction; 

wpio  has  kyer  had  words  of  comfort  for  me  in 

HOURS  OF  despondency; 

WHO  HAS  been  AT  ALL  TIMES  MY  INSPIRATION  IN  THE 

DI  YIN  EST  SENSE  OF  THE  WORD; 

TO  REV.  A.J.  WEAVER,  THE  NOBLE  REFORMER  AND 

RIPE  SCHOLAR, 

WHOSE  SOUL  GOES  OUT  TO  LABOR  FOR  HUMANITY,  AND 

WHO  WITH  PURSE  AND  PEN  HAS  LABORED 

TO  MAKE  THE  SPIRITUALIST  TRAINING  SCHOOL 

A  SUCCESS 

AND  WHO  AS  TEACHER  AND  ADVISER  HAS  BEEN  OF 

INCALCULABLE  ASSISTANCE  TO  THE  SCHOOL; 

AND  TO  THE  STUDENTS  OF  THE  TRAINING  SCHOOL  "WHO 

HAVE  URGED  THE  PUBLICATION  OF  THIS  BOOK, 

IS  THIS  WORK 

OF  MY  HAND,  HEART  AND  HBAD 

DEDICATED. 


PREFACE. 


I  have  many  times  given  lectures  or  portions 
of  lectures  on  the  Bible  or  part  of  the  Bible,  in 
the  light  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  and  invariably 
left  my  audience  with  a  desire  to  hear  more  on 
the  subject.  This  has  caused  me  to  feel  that  that 
portion  of  the  world  with  which  I  happen  to  be 
in  touch,  need  something  of  the  kind  here  pre- 
sented; but  the  task  of  writing  it  out  seemed  so 
great  for  a  man  so  busy  as  I  have  been  that  I 
shrunk  from  the  work. 

I  strove  to  ease  my  conscience  by  writing  a 
series  of  thirty  Bible  lessons,  most  of  them  on 
the  subject  here  treated,  and  sending  them  to 
such  students  as  chose  to  take  them  through 
the  mail.  All  this  but  whetted  the  appetite  for 
more. 

In  our  Summer  Training  School  at  Mantua, 
Ohio,  (now  at  Lil3^  Dale  N.  Y.)  in  the  summer  of 
1899, 1  gave  to  such  of  our  students  as  could  take  the 
time  from  other  studies  to  listen  to  them,  a  series  of 
twenty  lectures  on  the  subject.  On  the  last  day  of 
the  school  those  of  the  class  who  remained  on  the 


PREFACE. 

ground   presented   to   me   the   following  letter: 

Mantua,  Ohio,  July  14,  1809. 
Rev.  Moses  Hull. 
Dear  Friend  and  Teacher: — The  interest  awakened 
by  your  instructive  lectures  on  the  Higher  Criticism 
has  been  so  intense  that  we,  the  members  of  your  class 
earnestly  request  you  to  publish  them  in  such  form 
that  not  only  we  but  the  world  at  large  may  receive 
benefit  from  the  invaluable  instruction  so  freely  given 
by  you  to  The  Spiritualist's  Training  School.  Your 
class  believes  that  by  so  doing  you  will  add  to  scien- 
tific literature  a  work  much  needed  by  Advanced  Think- 
ers of  today,  and  one  which  will  be  of  incalculable 
benefit  to  every  one  who  will  give  it  the  attention  it 
merits. 

Hoping   that    you    will  find  it  for  your  own  as  well 
as  for  the  interest  of  others  to  publish  the  results  of 
your  long  study  and  mature   thought  on  this  import- 
ant subject,  we  are  with  love  and  gratitude. 
Your  Devoted  Pupils, 

Mrs.  S,  Comstock-Ellis,  Auburn^  N.  Y 

S.  A.  NivER,  Auburn,  N.  Y. 

Mary  A.  Ingalls,  Philadelphia,  N.  Y. 

A.  B.  LovETT,  Beulah,  Mich. 

M   ^  ^'^wRBACH,  SejTnour,  Ind. 

H.  C.  r...  "Bennett's  Switch,  Ind. 

G.  W.  Way,  Wii..   ng,  W.  Va, 

Victoria  C.  Moore,  Dryden,  N.  Y. 

Nina  E.  Cole,  Mantua  Station,  Ohio. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  say  that  this  letter  ex- 
pressing such  appreciation  of  my  work  increased 
my  desire  to  get  about  the  work;  this  book 
is  the  result. 


PREFACE. 

Whether  the  book  meets  with  general  favor  or 
not  is  yet  to  determine.  That  it  was  wanted  by 
many  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  nearly  two 
thousand  persons  subscribed  and  paid  for  it  in 
advance. 

It  will  be  discovered  that  though  I  have  made 
many  quotations,  not  many  of  them  have  come 
from  old  standard  authorities.  There  were  two 
reasons  for  this;  first,  these  older  works  are 
no  better  than  those  I  have  used;  and  second, 
this  book  has  for  the  most  part  been  written 
while  en  route,  going  from  camp  to  camp,  and 
generally  lecturing  or  preaching  once  or  twice 
each  day.  Under  these  conditions  I  could  not 
carry  a  great  library  with  me.  I  used  mostly 
such  authorities  as  were  at  hand,  and  in  smaller 
compass. 

•   Of  one  thing   I    am    sure,  no    one  will  gainsay 
either  my  authorities  or  arguments. 

That  this  book  may  lead  man^^  into  the  light 
and  stiil  many  others  to  investigate  further,  and 
that  heaven's  blessings  may  rest  upon  the  read- 
ers as  they  iave  upon  the  v^riter  is  the  eai'nest 
wish  of 

The  Author. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  Feb.  15,  i  &00. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

[NTRODUCTORY  THOUGHTS  —  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  IS. 

Motives  in  Studying  the  Bible— Why  this  Book  is  Written— 
How  to  Read  the  Bible— Nothing  Comes  for  Nothing- 
Wisdom;  Its  Benefits— Bibles  Not  Inspired— Holy  Ghost; 
Its  Work — Inspiration  no  Evidence  of  Truth — The  Road 
to  Great  Thoughts— Dr.  Talmage  on  the  Bible— What  is 
Inspiration? — Inspiration  Natural— What  is  Demonstrat- 
ed Concerning  Genesis — Talmagean  Logic  Proves  Sin  Di- 
vine— Changes  in  Manuscripts — How  Erasmus  got  Por- 
tions of  Greek  Testament — Mistakes  in  Transcription — 
Some  of  the  Changes  in  Revised  Version — Search  The 
Scriptures — How  Jesus  Reasoned — Is  all  Scripture  Divine- 
ly Inspired? — More  Sure  Word  of  Prophecy. 

Page 17. 

CHAPTER    II. 

WORD  OF  GOD— WHAT  IT  IS     \0T    AND    WHAT  IT  IS. 

What  the  Westminister  Confession  of  Faith  Says — Dean 
Burgon  on  the  Word  of  God — An  Adventist  Divine  on 
the  '  Same— Reply— What  Samuel  Thought— Word  of 
God  Through  a  Medium  to  Rehoboam — Word  of  God 
to  John  the  Baptist — Word  of  God  Quick  and 
Powerful — Heb.  vi.  12,  in  a  New  Light — Talent 
Hidden  Under  a  Napkin — Word  of  God  and  Spirit  of 
Prophecy — Words  of  God  to  and  through  Balaam — Pri- 
vate Sittings  with  Ezekiel  in  order  to  Oljtain  the  Word — 
Word  of  the  Lord  to  the  Child  Samuel— Word  of  the 
Lord  through  ''Man  of  God"  to  Jeroboam — Famine  for 
Word  of  the  Lord — Word  Compared  with  Scripture — 
Words  of  the  Lord  spoken  through  the  Mouth  of 
Tii-emiah — "Is  there  any  Word  from   the  Lord?" — Dreams 


CONTENTS. 

and  the  Word  of  the  Lord — Word  not  in  False  Prophets — 
Word  Exorcises  Demons — Word  in  tiie  Heart — Word 
among  the  Spiritual  Gifts — Word  of  the  Lord  in  Elijah's 
Mouth — Word  of  the  Lord  Against  Four  Hundred  False 
Prophets. 

Page 39. 

CHAPTER  III. 

HIGHER  CRITICISM— WHAT  IT  IS. 

The  word  Criticism  Objectionable — Esoteric  Criticism — Criti- 
cism a  Newly  Discovered  Science — A  few  Authors  to  Con- 
sult— The  Facts  Kept  from  the  People — Rev.  R.  Heber 
Newton  on  Criticism — Change  in  Church  Tactics  on 
the  Question — Rev.  Mr.  Cadnian  and  Rev.  Washington 
Gladden  on  Higher  Criticism — Mr.  Newton's  Further 
Remarks  on  the  Same — Andrew  D.  White  sets  forth  Old 
Opinions  of  the  P.il^le — Dean  Burgon  on  Inerrencj  of 
Bible — Canon  McNeile  on  the  same — Extract  from  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith — Higher  Criti-^ism  and 
Shakespeare's  Plays — The  After  Thought  which  i  ade 
Jesus  a  God — Impossible  Miracles  attending  Jesus' Birth 
and  Death — Other  Gods  and  Revelatio"  — No  part  of  the 
World  Abandoned — Peter's  Lesson —  ..j  Every  Nation 
thought  Itself  Heaven's  Favorite — Bibles  not  Finali  ;es. 
Page 68, 

CHAPTER    IV. 

APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE. 

Pentateuch,  Meaning  of— Does  Jesus  Endorse  the  Mosaic 
Law?— The  Writer  of  Deuteronomy  and  Jesus  on  Loving 
your  Enemies — Two  Old  Testaments  in  Jesus'  da}' — 
Apostles  used  Apocr-^nhal  Books — Quotations  from  the 
Apocryphal  Old  Tr.wament — Books  of  the  Bible  quoted,, 
not  now  known  to  Exist— Did  Moses  write  the  Latin 
Words  in  the  Pentateuch? 

Page 87. 

CHAPTER  V. 

MORE  OUTSIDE  TESTIMONY.   A  FEW  THINGS  IN  GENESIS. 
A  Plurality  of  Goda — Word  eight  times  translated  Jehovah 


CONTENTS. 


is  Ei^ht  thousand  times  Translated  Lord— Contradictions 
in  First  and  Second  Chapters  of  Genesis — ^Astruc's  Dis- 
covery— The  Pentateuch  Young — A  More  Ancient  Moses — 
Two  Stories  of  the  Flood— Same  of  Beer-sheba— Rev.  R, 
Hcbcr  Newton  against  luerrenc^  of  Old  Testament — A 
Quaker  Scholar  on  Genesis — Sensible  Remarks  from  Rev. 
John  Chad  wick. 

Page 99. 


CHAPTER    YI. 

GENESIS  TO  JOSHUA. 

Isles  of  the  Gentiles— No  Gentiles  until  the  Rebellion  of  the 
Jews  under  Jeroboam— Canaanites  in  the  Land — Where 
Abraham  pursued  his  Enemies — Before  there  reigned  any 
Kin;<  in  Israel — "Unto  this  Day" — What  Josephus  thought 
of  Exodus — Two  sets  of  Ten  Commandments — Who  said 
Md^es  was  Great? — Could  Moses  have  written  Exodus 
xvi.  35 — Leviticus  xviii  written  after  the  Nations  were 
Spued  Out — Leviticus  xx  written  after  Babylonish  Cap- 
tivity— How  Meek  was  Moses?  Deuteronomy  the  Sec- 
ond Law— Extract  from  Mr.  Chadwick— Solomon's 
Shortcomings  Depicted  by  the  Deuteronomist — A  King 
Demanded — Samuel  Astonished — Yahweh  Surprised — Did 
Moses  write  the  Account  of  his  own  Death? — Ancient 
Land  Marks — Deuteronomy  Compares  Moses  -wnth  his 
Successors — Book  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord — Opinion  on 
Origin  of  Pentateuch. 

Page 112. 


CHAPTER  YII. 

JOSHUA  TO  JOB. 

Thr  TTrxateuch— The  Other  side  of  the  Flood— Did  Joshua 
Write  about  "The  Elders  that  overlived  Joshua?" — Dr. 
Briggs'  Testimony — Other  Historical  Books — Writers  of 
these  Books  knew  little  about  Moses — Samuel,  David, 
Solomon  and  others  Knew  Nothing  of  the  Mosaic  Law — 
Dr.  Gladden  on  Mosaic  Legislation — Gideon  and  Deborah 
Solar  Myths — Was  Jesus  part  Moabite? — Did  Samuel 
Write  the  Books  which  l>ear  His  Name? — Events  mostly 
post  Samuel — Samuel  and  David  Extolled  at  the  Expense 
of  Saul— Bible  Samuel  and  the  Sunday  School  Samuel;  the 
difference— Saul  Slightb'  Mixed  on  David— The  Two  Books 


CONTENTS. 

of  Kings  but  One — Written  After  Babylonish  Captivity — 
Books  of  Chronicles  Unhistorical — Chronicles,  Ezra  and 
Nehcmiah  all  One  Book— Written  l)}-  a  Priest— John  Chad- 
wick's  Comments — Chronicles  Contradicts  Other  por- 
tions of  the  Bible — Ahaziah  Too  Old — Numerous  Contra- 
dictions Between  Kings  and  Chronicles — How  Satans  and 
Devils  got  into  Chronicles — Dr.  Gladden  on  these  Old 
Writings — Alliance  between  Cyrus  and  The  Jews — The 
Jews'  Return — Ezra  Compelled  them  to  Forsake  their  Fam- 
ilies— Nehemiah's  work  under  Artaxerxes — Book  of  Esth- 
er no  Benefit  to  the  Bible — Vashti  the  only  Noble  Charac- 
ter in  this  Book. 

Page 136. 


CHAPTER  YIII. 

JOB  TO    ISAIAH. 

An  Unsolved  Problem — Old  Opinions  of  the  Book — Not  an 
Israelitish  Book — Prose  Prologue  and  Epilogue — How 
the  Book  is  Divided — Mr.  Chadwick's  Opinion — The 
Psalms — Reverence  once  Attached  to  them — Simply  a  Col- 
lection of  Hebrew  Hymns — How  they  are  Divided — Five 
Benedictions — David  Wrote  only  a  few  Psalms — Did  Dav- 
id Write  the  Fifty-First  Psalm?— Chad  wick  on  the  Char- 
acter of  David— Some  of  the  Psalms  Written  During  the 
Babylonish  Captivitj- — A  Wicked  Psalm — Many  Wise  and 
Good  F*ro verbs — Sages  and  "Wisdom Books" — Who  Wrote 
the  Proverbs? — Discourse  on  Wisdom — Some  Proverbs 
not  Wise — Bad  Advice  on  Drink — A  Virtuous  Woman- 
Book  of  the  Preacher — His  Effcjrts  for  Happiness — He 
Tries  Wisdom,  Mirth,  Wine  and  Wealth— All  Fail— Life 
Not  Worth  Living — Man  Only  a  Beast — Final  Solution — 
Mr  Sunderland's  Opinion — Ecclesiastes  not  Written  by 
Solomon — The  Canticles — Many  Opinions — Insane  Head- 
ings of  Chapters — Not  in  Nehemiah's  Canon — Resume'  of 
the  Poem — Chadwick's  Comments. 

Page 161. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

HAVE  THE    PREDICTIONS  OF  TH^ 

PROPHETS  BEEN  FULFILLED? 
The   word    Prophet;    What   does  it  mean?— Rev.  R.  Heber 


CONTENTS. 

Newton  on  Prophecy— A  Medium  of  any  kind  is  a  Proph- 
et—Old Testament  Meaning  of  the  Word — Did  Prophe- 
cy Fail?— How  Prophesying  is  Done — Providence  Journal 
nn  Spiritualism — ^Jesus'  Failures  in  Prognostication — 
F'^silure  of  the  Resurrected  Jesus'  Predictions— Other  Mis- 
tokrs  made  by  the  World's  Supposed  Savior — David's 
Tijrone — It  is  to  be  Occupied  by  David's  Sons  .as  long  as 
Si?n  or  Moon  Exists — Exiinnnati-on  of  Supposed  F'ullilled 
Prophecies — What  it  takes  to  fulfill  a  Prophecy — Mistakes 
of  tiic  New  Testament  in  Quoting  and  Apph'ing  the  Old 
— The  Vircfin  Born  Son — Piiine  on  Prophecy — Ahaz  Con- 
quered— VVas  Jesus  to  be  Born  in  Bethlehem? — Several 
star-an!iounced  Gods — Was  Jesr.s  called  out  of  Egypt? — 
Rachel  Weeping — Xazarite  or  Nazarene — Did  Jesfts  Die  in 
Fuliiiiment  ot  Prophecy? — Were  the  Disciples  Armed  with 
Swords? — Who  Bought  that  Potter's  Field? — How  did 
Jesus  Die? — Was  the  Veil  rent  in  Twain? — Did  the  Dead 
com^  out  of  their  Graves? — Edward  Gibbon  on  these 
Phenomena— A  few  of  the  Fulfilled  Biblical  Predictions— 
The  Serpent's  Prophecy— That  made  by  the  Woman  of 
Endor — Some  True  Prophecies  not  in  the  Bible. 

Page 183. 

CHAPTER  X. 

ISAIAH  TO  DANIEL. 

Isaiah  Fra.q^mcntary— Change  of  Authors  at  Chapter  Forty 
— When  the  First  Isaiah  Lived — Dr.  Chad  wick  on  Isaiah 
— Isaiah  a  Mosiac — A  Voice  fromCommentators^eremiah 
a  Doleful  Prophet — Divided  into  three  Parts— Last  three 
Chapters  not  Written  by  Jeremiah — Jeremiah's  Predictions 
not  Fulfilled — Texts  to  be  Examined — Ezekiel  Apocalyptic 
but  not  True — More  of  a  Priest  than  a  Prophet — Perhaps 
a  Good  Physical  Medium — His  Temple  and  City  Never 
Built. 

Page 216. 

CHAPTER  XL 

DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

When  Daniel  was  Written — Not  less  than  two  Authors — 
Chadwick  on  Daniel — Encyclopedia  Britannica  on  the 
Same — Fulfilled  Before.  Written — Five  Reasons  Why  Dan- 
iel could  not  have  been  Written  long  Before  Christ — Words 


CONTENTS. 

in  Daniel  not  known  long  at  the  time  of  the  Captivity- 
Relates  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes— The  Twelve  Minor  Pra 
phets— Hosea  Among  the  Earlier  Prophets— Did  he  Maf« 
ry  two  Naughty  Women?— Only  an  Illustration— He  Deir 
nounces  Prophets,  Priests  and  People— Pleads  With  Is# 
rael  to  Repent,  and  Promises  Great  Blessings— Amos  nc? 
Prophet— Predictions  co-ncerning  David's  Throne- Art 
Honorable  but  Misled  Man— Did  not  like  Ceremonies 
—Foretells  a  Famine— Obadiah  of  Little  Importance— The 
Book  of  Jonah— Jonah  not  its  Author — All  in  the  past 
Tense— Did  Jonah  Think  to  Escape  Cod  by  Going  to 
Tarshish?— Nebetniah  Knew  Nothing  of  Jonah — Didactic 
Fiction — Who  Believes!,  etc. — Dr.  Gladden  on  Jonah — Micah 
— When  he  Prophesied— Did  he  prophecy  of  the  Messiah? 
— His  Prognoses  Failures — Against  Assyria  and  Nineveh 
— Did  he  foretell  Railroad  Trains? — Rabakkuk's  Prophecy 
— Zephaniah — Israel  Suffered  Justly — Maggai  asks  Zeruba- 
bel  to  Rebuild  the  Temple — He  Promises  Much — His  Book 
Carelessly  Edited — A  Mediumistic  Work— Threats  and 
Promises  About  Jerusalem — None  of  Them  True — Malacbi- 
Meaning  of  the  Word — Considered  Last  and  Least  of  all 
the  Prophets. 

Page 226. 


CHAPTER   XII. 

MATTHEW  AND  MARK. 

New  TfiSTAMENT  not  one  Book— Epistles  Written  First — 
^vlark  Probably  the  First  Gospel  Written — How  it  Origi- 
nated— Sunderland  on  the  Origin  of  the  Gospels — Gospels 
Written  in  Greek— How  Mark  got  his  Gospel — Mistakes 
in  the  Genealogy  of  Jesus — Coutradictmy  Stories  About 
the  Blind  Man, "'or  Men— Difterent  Stories  About  the  Ill- 
ness of  Peter's  Mother-m-law~DilTerent  Stories  About  the 
Superscription  on  the  Cross— Matthew  a  Jewish  Book— 
Who  Wrote  Matthew?— Mark— Perhaps  the  First  Gospel 
— How  Mark  Begins  his  Record — Chad  wick  on  Origin 
of  Gospels. 

Page 253. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  ST  LUKE. 

Many  Gospels  Written  Before    Luke— Luke  Not  an  Bye-wit- 


CONTENTS. 

ness^Tells  Only  What  he  Believes— Growth  From  For- 
mer Gospels— How  Stories  Grow— The  Case  of  St.  Xavier 
— Luke  Begins  Farther  Back  than  Either  Mark  or  Mat- 
thew—Luke and  Matthew  Utterly  Irreconcilable— Some 
of  the  Differences  Stated — The  Destruction  of  Jerusalem — 
Many  Other  Stories  Found  in  Luke  not  in  Other  Gospels 
— Some  of  Luke's  Miracles  not  Elsewhere  Stated— Who 
Wept,  Jesus  or  the  Women?— Did  Both  Thieves  Rail  on 
Jesus,  or  did  one  Pray?— End  of  Synoptics. 

Page 268. 

CHAPTER  XIY. 

THE  LAST  GOSPEL. 

"Nimbtts  of  Legendary  Matter"— In  What  Does  John  Differ 
From  Other  Gospels?— Dr.  Sunderland's  Statement— Leg- 
endary Stories— The  Author  of  John  not  Trustworthy 
as  a  Historian— Mr.  Chadwick's  Thouohts  on  John- 
Jesus'  First  Miracle— A  Drunken  Civilization— No  Drunk- 
en Buddhists  or  Alohammedans— The  Miracle  at  the 
Pool  of  Bethesda— Did  This  Miracle  Occur?— Did  Jesus 
Make  New  Eyes  for  one  Born  Blind?— Resurrection  of 
Lazarus— Differences  Between  John  and  the  Synoptics- 
John  not  the  Author  of  Fourtn  Gospel— Stories  which 
have  no  P'oundation  in  Fact— Too  Many  Books— Not 
Written  Until  After  Justin  Martyr's  Day. 

Page 27& 

CHAPTER  XV. 

ACTS  OF    THE    APOSTLES. 

Different  Titles  to  this  Book— Claims  to  have  been  Writ- 
ten by  the  Author  of  Luke— Not  Written  in  the  First  Cen- 
tury-Why this  Book  was  Written— Writer  Claims  to  be 
a  Ctnnpanion  of  Paul- The  Luke  of  Acts  Cotitradicis  the 
Luke  who  Wrote  the  Gos[)el^Paul  Contradicts  the  Writ- 
er nt  Acts— Paul,  in  Galatians  Exphiins  the  Controversy 
Kelvnod  to  m  Acts  xv.— Was  this  a  Conference,  or  a 
(Juarrel?— Did  Paul  Circumcise  Timothy?— Who  Made  the 
Speeches  in  Acts?— Did  *Paul  Retain  his  Judaism?— Paul 
Opposed  to  the  Jewish  Law— Chadwick  Explains— Why 
Acts  Wc-u  Written.  ' 

Page 291. 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE   EPISTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS. 

New  Testament  a  Grqwtli— Authenticity  and  Order  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles — Matter  of  Authorship  of  Minor  Im- 
portance—^Paul  sPoes  Not  Claim  Plenary  Inspiration — 
How  Romans  is  Di.vided — Did  Paul  Thank  God  That 
the  Romans  were  Sinners? — The  "Gifts;"  What  They 
Are— A  Good  System  of  Ethics— Chapter  Sixteen  the 
Work  of  Another  Hand, 

Page :.! 302. 

CHAPTER  XYII. 

FIRST  AND    SECOND    CORINTHIANS. 

Three  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians — Divisions  in  the  Church- 
Corinthians  Slack  in  Morals — Paul's  Idea  of  Freedom — 
Pafll  on  the  W^oman  Question — Chapters  Twelve,  Thir- 
teen and  Fourteen  to  be  Read  Together — Argument  on 
the  Resurrection  of  Jesus — His  Evidence — The  Logical 
Sequence— Baptized  for  the  Dead — We- Shall  not  all  Sleep 
— A  few  Words  from  Dr.  Peebles — Whj-  Second  Corin- 
thians Was  Written — Wants  the  Incestuous  Man  Restor- 
ed to  the  Church — His  Belief  in  the  Unseen — Exhortation 
to  Bodily  and  Spiritual  Cleanliness — Exhorts  to  Cheerful 
Giving— Renews  his  Quarrel  with  the  Other  Apostles- 
Accuses  Them  of  Being  False  Apostles — Deceitful  Work- 
ers— Paul's  Pedigree — Spiritual  Intromission. 

Page 311 

CHAPTER  XVHI. 

THE  OTHER  SUPPOSED  EPISTLES  OF  PAUL. 

Galvtians  Certainly  Paul's  Letter— The  Aftermath  of  the 
Conference  in  Acts  xv — A  Conflict  with  the  Jerusalem 
Apostles— Paul  Not  Ordained  by  Men— Paul  States  the 
Issues  Between  Others  and  Himself^ — Names  James,  Ce- 
phas and  John  as  "False  Bi-et>hren"— Paul  Brings  Serious 
Charges  Against  Peter— H agar  and  the  Old  "Dispensa 
tion— Ephesians  Not  Written  by  Pa'ul- The  Book  Mis- 
represents Paul— Was  the  Letter  Written  to  the  Ephe- 
sians?—Reasons  for  Doubting   that  Paul  Wrote  It— Good 


CONTENTS. 

Things  in  Colossians— Author  Unknown— Reasons  Whr 
Paul  Could  Not  Have  Written  This  Letter— Thessalon- 
ians  an  Old  Document— Did  Paul  Write  It?— Second  Thes- 
salonians — Perhaps  Post  Pauline— The  Pastoral  Epistles 
— Chadwick  on  These  Epistles — Dr.  Davidson's  .Opinion — 
Epistle  of  Philemon  Sends  a  Man  Back  to  Slavery — Who 
Wrote  the  Book  of  Hebrews? — Anti-Pauline— Makes  the 
Old  Typical  of  the  New— Paul  a  Manly  Man— Responsi- 
ble for  the  Spread  of  Christianity. 

Page 325 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE  SEVEN    CATHOLIC  EPISTLES. 

Why  Called  Catholic?— Some  of  Them  not  General— James 
not  Written  by  an  Apostle — Written  not  to  Christians 
but  "to  the  Twelve  Tribes"— What  James  vras  it?— Luth- 
er's Opinion  of  this  Epistle — A  Good  Reproduction  of  the 
Theology  of  Jesus — This  Epistle  Anti-Pauiine — When  was 
First  Peter  Written? — Written  -from  Bab3-lon — Was  this 
Bab)'lon  Rome? — The  Epistle  more  like  Paul  than  Pete^ 
— Why  it  may  have  been  Written — Second  Peter— Its 
Genuineness  Always  Doubted — Was  it  an  Enlargement 
of  Jude? — Its  Author  Over-acts — Written  After  "the  fath- 
ers fell  Asleep" — Epistles  of  John  Anonymoush' Written — 
Sunderland's  Opinion— Xot  Written  b^'  the  John  who  was 
the  Associate  of  Jesus — The  Book  of  Jude— Hard  Work 
to  Get  into  our  Bible — Was  it  Written  by  the  Brother 
of  James  and  Jesus?— Pertinent  Remarks  of  Dr.  Chadwick 
—Jude  gets  the  Wrong  Enoch. 

Page 342. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE  APOCALYPSE. 

Has  At  Least  two  Authors — Some  Things  Written  Before  the 
Destruction  of  the  Temple — Son.^e  in  the  Second  Century-:- 
Wise  Words  from  Dr.  Martineau — An  Apocryphal  Era — 
Some  of  the  Judaisms  of  the  Book — Red'cTcLCjr  Works 
Geiitiles  in — Apocalypse  not  by  the  Author  of  Fourth 
Gosp-el — Thoughts  from  Chadwick — Wild  Interpretations — 
It  Contains  no  Prophecy  of  Distant  Future — Tioie  is  at 
Hand — Why  Written  in    Symbols — Chadwick's    ^xplana- 


CONTENTS. 

tion— Dr.  Gladden  Explains  Six-Hundred  Three  Score  and 
Six — Conclusion. 

Page 352. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  GANON, 

Canon,  Definition  of— Our  Canon  made  up  of  Sixty-six  Tracts 
— Canon  not  Closed  with  the  Apocalypse — Canon  began 
Under  Ezra — Continued  Under  Nehemiah — Nehemiah  En- 
dorsed Books  now  Lost — Facts  as  Stated  bj  Enc3''clopedia 
Britannica — Samaritans  and  Sadducees  Rejected  Prophets 
and  Other  Writings — Two  Old  Testaments — Light  on  the 
Subject  from  Dr.  Gladden— Suspended  on  a  slender 
Thread — Old  Testament  Divided  into  three  parts — Only 
Twenty-two  Books  in  Josephu.s',  Canon — How  the  Num- 
ber Increased — Church  P'athers  used  Apocryphal  Books — 
Canon  made  under  St.  Augustiiie  in  393 — Another  in  397 
— Another  made  in  154-(3 — Ours  made  About  1650 — Old 
Testament  more  Authoritative  Among  Early  Christians 
,  — Catholic  Canon  made  at  Trent  in  154G — Anathematiza- 
tion of  all  w^lio  Rejected  it — Greek  Church  niade  Canon 
in  1638 — Protestant  Canon  made  at  Westminster  AV)out 
1650 — Protestants  Reject  P\)urteen  Books— Paul's  Writ- 
ings Rejected  by  tlve  Early  Church — Constantine's  Canon 
Rejected  Several  of  our  Books — Luther  made  his  own 
Canon — Rejected  Several  of  our  Books. 

Page 362. 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

IS  THE  BIBLE  GOD'S  REVELATION? 
A  FURTHER  REVIEW  OF  AFFIRMATIVE  ARGUMENTS. 

The  Demand  and  Supply  Argument— The  Syllogistic  Argu- 
ment—Logic Spoiled  by  too  much  Logic — Reductio  ad 
Ahsurdum  Arguments — Why  was  this  Revelation  Given 
as  a  Secret  to  a  Race  of  Brickmakers?— Was  Jesus  sent  to 
do  Away  with  a  God-given  Revelation?— Jesus  Quotes 
the  Old  Testament  to  Dispute  it— Old  Testament  could 
not  be  a  Revelation  to  us — Testimony  of  Rev.  T.  W. 
Chambers  and  many  Others— How  Hebrew  Bibles  Were 
Written— Hebrew  "loop-holes"— "Spots  on  the  Sun"   Ex- 


CONTENTS. 

plains— Hebrew  People  Ignorant-^ew  Testament— Was 
JeSiis  Educated?— Jes-us  not  Immediately  Reported — Gos- 
pels not  Original  Documents — New  Testament  title  mis- 
leading—Manuscripts Discovered  since  the  Authorized 
Version  was  Published— Mistakes  of  Copyists— No  Man- 
uscript Authority  for  our  Version— How  Jerome  got  in 
as  a  Bible  Maker. 

Page 380. 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS. 

Bible  Makers  erer  at  Work— Ours  more  than  an  Average 
Bible — A  Few  Bibles  Named — The  Number  of  Religionists 
in  the  World— Reverence  for  Other  Bibles — Facts  Stated 
by  Prof.  Jowett — i*rof.  Max  Muller  on  the  same — ^Jewish 
Opposition  to  Septuagint  Bible— Other  Jewish  Legends— 
Piiilo's  interpretations— The  Good  in  Other  Bibles— Our 
Religious  Fasts,  Feasts,  Forms  and  Cerenvonies  long  Be- 
fore Christ — Was  Christianity  drawn  from  Buddhism? — A 
Heathen  Psalm — The  God  of  Pythagoras — The  Religion  of 
Zoroaster — Extracts  from  Parsee  Catechism — Prof  James 
T.  Bixby  on  Religion  of  Persians — Max  MuUer's  Opinion 
— Golden  Texts  from  Confucius — No  Drunken  or  Warring 
Buddhists — Buddhistic  Missionaries — Did  John  and  Jesus 
Study  B'uhlhism? — Legends  of  the  Birth  of  Siddhartha 
and  of  Jcs«}s — Rejoicings  in  Celestial  and  Terrestrial  Na- 
ture— Asita  and  Sin>eou — Origin  of  the  Gospel  of  Buddha 
— Similarities  of  Buddha  and  Jesus — Beatitudes  of  Bud- 
dha and  Jesus — How  Men  are  Defiled — Both  on  Lov- 
ing your  Enemies — Similarity  on  Other  Points — How 
Disciples  of  Buddha  must  Live — Buddha  on  Good  and 
Evil — Ten  Th'mgs  to  be  Avoided — Five  Buddhistic  Com- 
mandments— Buddha  On  Thought — Socrates'  Praj-^r — 
His  Dying  Speech — Some  things  from  the  Koran. 

Page 399u 


THE  BIBLE ^ 

AND  THE 

HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY  THOUGHTS  —  WHAT  THE  BIBLE  IS. 

Motives  in  Studylnf^  the  Bible— Why  this  Book  is  Written— 
How  to  Read  the  Bible— Nothing  Comes  for  Nothing- 
Wisdom;  Its  .  Benefits— Bibles  Not  Inspired— Holy  Ghost; 
Its  Work — Inspiration  no  Evidence  of  Truth — The  Road 
to  Great  Thoughts— Dr.  Talmage  on  the  Bible— What  is 
Inspiration? — Inspiration  Natural— What  is  Demonstrat- 
ed Concerning  Genesis — Talmagean  Logic  Proves  Sin  Di- 
vine— Changes  in  Manuscripts — How  Erasmus  got  Por- 
tions 'of  Greek  Testament — Alistakes  in  Transcription — 
Some  of  the  Changes  in  Revised  Version — Searcli  The 
Scriptures — How  Jesus  Reasoned — Is  all  Scripture  Divine- 
ly Inspired? — More  Sure  Word  of  Prophecy. 

"How  rcadest  thon?"  Luke  x.  26. 
The  Bible  is  read  in  various  ways  for  various 
purposes,  and  from  many  different  motives.  Real 
criticism  is  a  newly  developed  science.  Until 
within  a  few  years  one  party  has  made  a  kind 
of  fetich  of  the  Bible;  it  has  regarded  m^any  say- 
ings in  that  book  as  true  because  they  are  there. 
Many  did  not  seem  to  think  that  they  were 
placed  there  because,  in  the  estimation  of  their 
authors  they  were  true,  and  that  the3'  would 
have  been  equall3^  as  true  and  as  divine  if  they 
had  been  found  in  any  other  book.  Others  have 
regarded  the  Bible  as  the  production  of  a  per- 


16        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

verse  and  wicked  priesthood:  made  with  the  de- 
sign of  deceiving  a  supci;iwitiotis  and  ignorant 
pubHc. 

Thus,  by  each  party — one  praising  and  the  other 
condemning  the  Bible,  the  truth  has  been  almost 
entirely  overlooked.  It  is  hoped  that  the  reader 
of  this  book  v^ill  study  the  Bible  but  not  with 
the  design  to  make  any  theor\^  true;  nor  of  mak- 
ing it  support  any  particular  cult.  The  world 
wants  the  truth  about  that  book;  it  also  wants 
to  find  a  natural  and  sensible  interpretation  of 
the  truths  and  errors  it  m^.y  contain. 

For  .  ...iiy  hundred  years  an  effort  has  been 
made  to  force  the  sa3angs  of  the  Bible  upon  the 
world  as  infallible  truths,  but,  in  spite  of  all 
these  efforts  the  w^orkl  gets  farther  from  that 
position  ever^^  day.  Others  have  tried  to  force 
tlie  Bibie  away  from  the  position  it  holds  in  the 
world  as  a  factor  in  our  present  civilization; 
this  too  has  been  without  success.  The  Bible 
holds  its  place  in  the  minds  and  affections  of  the 
people.  It  is  regarded  by  a  large  majority  of  the 
enligntened  w^orld  as  a  wonderful,  and  on  the 
whole  as  a  good  book;  and  the  one  who  either 
ignores  or  condemns  it  is  himself  ignored  or  con- 
demned by  the  people. 

While  people  look  to  the  Bible  as  they  do,  may 
it  not  be  well  for  those  who  do  their  own  think- 
ing to  look  into  it  and  see  wrhether,  on  the  whole, 
when  correct^  interpreted,  it  condemns  or  sus- 
tains the  newer  thoughts  which  are  now  forcing 
their  way  to  the  front?  With  the  design  of  ac- 
quainting a  few  honest  students  with  a  correct 


INTRODUCTORY  THOUGHTS.  17 

knowledge  of  the  Bible,  and  a  correct  interpreta- 
tion of  its  teachings,  this  book  is  written. 
How  Shall  The  Bible  Be  Read? 

There  are  various  ways  to  read  the  Bible,  one 
of  which  is  to  read  it  through  a  few  times  b^^ 
course.  Of  course  there  is  much  dry  and  unin- 
teresting matter  found  in  it,  but  in  no  other 
w^y  can  one  become  familiar  with  all  the  events 
recorded  in  that  book.  One  hour  devoted  to  the 
study  of  it  each  day  for  sixty  days  is  sufficient 
to  read  every  word  of  the  Bible.  There  are  ie^w 
who  cannot  spare  that  hour.  More  than  that 
much  time  is  spent  by  nearly  ever3^  one  in  some 
kind  of  games,  gossip,  or  something  possibl3^  not 
so  innocent  as  either.  The  party  who  reads  the 
Bible  through  once  v/ill  be  likely  to  read  many 
parts  of  it  again.  I  have  rea,d  King  James' 
translation  of  the  Bible  through  b3^  course  over 
thirty  times;  besides  that  I  have  read  several 
other  translations,  including  the  Revised  Version. 
I  have  also  read  the  Ca.tliolic  Bible  which  has 
many  good  things  in  its  fourteen  extra  books, 
not  in  our  Bibles. 

Ours  is  not  a  Bible,  it  was  never  called  so  un- 
til we  get  down  centuries  this  side  of  the  open- 
ing of  the  C-l.ristian  era.  The  sixt3^-six  tracts 
composing  it  were  written  bj'  difierent  authors 
in  different  countries  aaid  ages  of  the  world;  and 
the  books,  whether  taken  together  or  as  a  who.e, 
were  simply  called  Scriptures.  Those  of  what  we 
call  the  Old  Testament  were  regarded  of  as  much 
more  importance  than  the  New,  because  the3^  were 
older;  the  world  has  alwa^'s  looked  backward  to 


18     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

good  times,  and  for  wise  men,  more  than  it  has 
ever  looked  forward.  * 

After  a  few  centuries  they  were  called  Ta  Biblia; 
or  the  Literature,  or,  perhaps  more  literally  the 
Library.  When  the  fight  came  on  as  to  which 
was  first,  the  church  or  the  Bible — ^which  ^^as 
founded  on  the  other,  the  part^-  believing  the  Bi- 
ble to  be  the  foundation  of  the  Church  and  not 
that  the  Church  made  the  Bible,  ceased  to  call  it 
Ta  Biblia,  but  began  to  c411  it  Ton  Bihlion;  thus 
The  Library  became  The  Booky  and,  as  m'ght 
have  been  expected,  its  importance  was  greatlj^ 
enhanced. 

The  Bible  should  be  studied  by  subjects.  The 
Protestant  Bible  has  sixty-six  different  books  in 
it,  with  nearly  as  many  authors.  The  Cat!  >  olio 
Bible  has  eighty  books,  and  several  more  authors 
than  the  Bible  commonly  used  by  Protestants. 

Every  one  of  these  authors  has  liis  say  on  a 
variety  of  themes.  The  only  way  to  arrive  at  a 
consensus  of  Biblical  opinion  on  any  subject  is  to 
study  the  Bible  by  subjects — to  find  and  compare 
all  that  each  writer  in  every  place,  has  to  say,  on 
any  given  subject. 

This  will  not  be  found  to  be  the  work  of  a  day, 
a  w^eek,  or  a  year.  No  one  would  expect  to  ar- 
rive at  an  extended  knowledge  of  any  science  by 
simply  sitting  down  and  reading  a  page  on  the 
subject  on  Sunday  morning,  or  even  by  reading 
a  page  a  day;  yet  thousands  who  think  they  re- 
gard the  Bible  as  the  most  important  book  ever 
written,  if  they  study  it  at  all,  read  it  in  the 
way  I  have  indicated. 


INTRODUCTORY  THOUGHTS.  19 

This  will  not  do;  knowledge  which  is  worth 
anything  conies  with  labor.  There  is  no  ro^^al 
road  to  knowledge.  That  which  conies  too  cheap- 
ly is  esteemed  too  lightty.  If  the  reader  has  not 
made  tip  his  mind  to  sttidj^— to  work  for  knowl- 
edge he  had  better  now  lay  this  book  down  and 
never  touch  it  again. 

But  no  matter  how  much  knowledge  costs  it 
al^ways  pays.  The  Bible,  upon  the  study  of  which 
we  are  now  entering,  sajs: 

**Yea,  if  thou  criest  after  knowledge,  and  liftest  up 
thy  voice  for  understanding;  if  thou  seekest  her  as  sil- 
ver, and  searchest  for  her  as  for  hid  treasures;  then 
shalt  thou  understand  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  find 
the  knowledge  of  God  for  the  Lord  giveth  wisdom;  out 
of  His  mouth  coraeth  knowledge  and  understanding. 
He  layeth  up  sound  wisdom  f  i  the  righteous;  he  is  a 
buckler  to  them  that  walk  uprightly.  *  *  *  Then  shalt 
thou  understand  righteousness  and  judgment,  and 
equity,  j^ea,  every  good  path."     Pro  v.  ii.  3-6. 

No  matter  who  wrote  these  proverbs;  these 
sayings  are  almost  axiomatic  truths.  He  who 
would  be  wise  must  seek  for  knowledge  as  for 
hidden  treasures,  and  search  for  it  as  earnestly 
as  the  miner  searches  for  gold;  the3^  must  cry  af- 
ter knowledge  and  understanding.  The^'-  must 
lay  up  wisdom.  In  chapter  iii.  13-18,  this  same 
-writer  says: 

"Happy  is  the  man  that  findcth  wisdom  and  the  man 
that  getteth  understanding.  For  the  merchandise  of 
it  is  better  than  the  merchandise  of  silver,  and  the  gain 
thereof  than  fine  gold.  She  is  more  precious  than  ru- 
bies; and  all  things  that  thou  canst  desire  arc  not  to  be 
compared  to  her.    Length  of  days  is  in  her  right  hand; 


20     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

and  in  her  left  hand  riches  and  honor.  Her  ways  ase 
ways  of  pleasantness,  and  all  her  paths  are  pea^c.  She 
is  a  tree  of  life  to  them  that  lay  hold  upon  her;  and  hap- 
py is  every  one  that  retaineth  her." 

This  statement  is  true;  of  all  men  in  the  world 
he  is  the  happiest  who  gets  the  most  understand- 
ing. What  will  not  speculators  endure  for  mer- 
chandise, and  yet  this  writer  says  the  merchandise 
of  it  is  better  than  the  merchandise  of  silver  and 
the  gain  thereof  than  fine  gold.  Length  of  days 
are  liable  to  go  with  wisdom;  but  whether  it 
does  or  not,  the  one  who  has  the  most  wisdom- 
— the  one  who  learns  the  most,  has  the  most 
happiness. 

Ihe  right  kind  of  an  education  is  company  for 
its  possessor  in  what  v^'cuid  c'-ber\Yi.se  be  hours 
of  solitude.  A  ^se  person  cannot  be  isolated. 
The  man  or  woman  witliout  knowledge  is  always 
bankrupt  when  alone. 

This  wise  man  in  his  lecture  to  his  son  pro- 
ceeds as  follows: 

"Get  wisdom,  gel  understanding;  forget  it  not;  neith- 
er decline  from  the  words  of  my  mouth.  Forsake  her 
not,  and  she  will  preserve  thee;  love  her  and  she  shall 
keep  thee.  Wisdom  is  the  principal  thing;  therefore 
get  wisdom;  and  with  all  thy  getting  get  understand- 
ing. Exalt  her  and  she  shall  promote  thee;  she  shall 
bring  thee  to  honor,  when  thou  dost  emhrace  her. 
She  shall  give  to  thine  head  an  ornament  of  grace;  a 
crown  of  glory  she  shall  deliver  to  thee."    Prov.  iv  5-9. 

Any  one  will  find  it  a  help  to  commit  to  mem- 
ory and  reflect  on  these  wise  proverbs.  In  chai>- 
ter   iii,    wisdom   cries   and    understanding    puts 


INTRODUCTORY  THOUGHTS.  21 

forth  her  voice.  In  verse  11-21  wisdom  is  per- 
sonified as  follows: 

*'For  wisdom  is  better  than' rubies;  and  all  the  things^ 
..hat  may  be  desired  arc  not  to  be  compared  to  it.  I^^ 
wisdom,  dwell  wnth  prudence  and  I  find  out  knowl- 
edge of  Avitty  inventions.  The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  ta 
hate  evil;  pride,  arrogancy,  and  the  evil  way,  and  the 
forward  mouth  do  I  hate.  Counsel  is  mine,  and  soundi 
wisdom;  I  am  understanding;  I  have  strength.  Byrne 
kings  reign,  and  princes  decree  justice.  By  me- princes, 
rule,  and  nobles,  even  all  the  judges  of  the  earth.  I; 
love  them  that  love  me^  and  those  that  seek  me  early; 
shall  find  me.  Riches  and  honor  are  with  me;  yea,| 
durable  riches  and  righteousness.  My  fruit  is  better^ 
than  gold,  3'ea,  than  fine  gold;  and  my  revenue  thau; 
choice  silver.  I  lead  in  the  paths  of  righteousness,  and( 
in  the  midst  of  the  paths  of  judgment;  that  I  maj^ 
cf'.ase  those  that  love  me  to  inherit  substance;  andflj 
will  fill  their  treasures." 

I  take  it  that  many  who  read  this,  may  do  so« 
with  a  desire  to  prepare  themselves  to  w^ork  pub^ 
licly  for  humanity.  Hence,  these  preliminary:^ 
tl:otiglits.  I  will  noTV  come  more  directly  to  myj 
work  by  premising  that  the  Bible  is  1 

Not  An  Inspired  Book. 

A  moment's  reflection  w411  convince  the  sensible 
reader  that  no  book  can  be  inspired.  Men,  w^o- 
.nen  and  children  are  inspired,  but  books  never. 
Eiihu  said:  "There  is  a  spirit  in  man,  and  the 
inspiration  of  the  Almighty  giveth  them  under- 
standing." Job  xxxiii.  8.  Peter  said:  *'Holy  men 
of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghoat."  2  Pet.  i.  21.  The  terms  men  of  God,  and 
man  of  God  will  alwa3^s  be  found  in  the  Bible  to 


22        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

refer  to  mediums.  The  Holy  Ghost, '  is  alwaj^s 
Spirit  power.  If  the  reader  will  remember  this, 
it  will  be  of  great  assistance  to  him  in  under- 
standing the  Bible.  Nowhere  has  the  Bible 
Iclaimed  that  its  pages  were  inspired.  To  inspire 
lis  to  breath  into;  every  breath  is  an  inspiration. 
To  inspire  one  with  thought  is,  in  a  certain 
sense,  to  breath  thoughts  into  the  one  thus  in- 
spired. When  Yah  well  breathed  into  man  the 
breath  of  life,  or  of  lives,  as  the  margin  reads, 
(see  Gen.  ii.  7.)  then  man  ^tvas  inspired. 

Jesus  promised  that  v/hen  he  went  away  he 
would  send  another  comforter — the  Greek  reads 
parakleton,  that  is,  a  helper.  This  comforter  was 
a  spirit;  he  called  it,  the  spirit  of  truth.  See  Jno. 
xiv.  16,  17.  In  this  same  discourse  he  says,  this 
comforter  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  is,  the  pneum.'zt- 
ica  hRgion,  good  spirit,  or,  literally,  spirit  the 
good — and  that  its  business  should  be  to  ''teach 
you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  re- 
membrance." Verse  26.  He  also  says:  ''But  the 
comforter  v^hich  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the 
father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  ^you 
all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  jonr  remem- 
brance, whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you." 
Thus,  this  inspiration  was  no.:  to  teach  only,  but 
to  quicken  their  memory. 

In  John  XV.  26,  Jesus  refers  to  this  comforter 
as  a  teacher,  and  its  oiiice  as  being  to  enable 
them  to  teach.  In  Jno.  xvi,  8  he  said:  "If  I  go 
not  away  the  comforter  w^ill  not  come  unto  you; 
but  if  I  depart  I  will  send  him  unto  you,  and  he 
will  reprove  (convince)  the  world  of  sin,  of  right- 


INTRODUCTORY  THOUGHTS.  23 

eotisness  and  of  judgment."  In  verse  13,  he  says: 
"Howbeit,  when  he,  the  spirit  of  truth  is  come, 
he  will  gnide  you  into  all  truth." 

No^^  this  comforter,  or  helper  was  inspiration — 
an  inspiration,  which,  in  some  cases  enabled  its 
recipient  to  speak  and  to  write.  Neither  the 
speeches  nor  writings  were  inspiration;  they  were 
both  partial  results  of  the  inspiration  of  those 
thus  stimulated. 

Inspiration  is  no  evidence  that  the  matter  spok- 
en or  written  by  the  one  inspired  is  truth.  It  is 
only  evidence  that  thoughts  are  given  him;  and, 
in  some  cases  ability  to  utter  these  thoughts. 
The  fact  that  I  am  now  putting  the  result  of  my 
inspirations  on  paper  is  no  proof  of  their  divinity 
or  of  their  truth. 

I  fully  believe  the  writers  of  the  Bible  to  have 
been  inspired,  a^sniost  other  ^vriters  were,  with 
tHe  best  thoughts  they  were  capable  of  receiving; 
and  that  they  gave  out  to  the  best  of  their  abil- 
it^^  these  inspired  thoughts. 

Nor  do  inspirations  always  come  from  a  super- 
mundane source;  everything  you  see  or  hear  has 
an  inspiring  effect  on  you.  When  3^ou  took  your 
summer  vacation  into  the  country  and  beheld  the 
magnificent  trees;  the  streams  of  water  and  all 
the  beauties  of  nature,  they  had  an  effect  upon 
your  sensorium  which  set  you  to  cogitating. 
That  was  inspiration.  These  things  bring  com- 
posite, if  not  complex  thoughts;  hills  brought 
one  set  of  thoughts,  rivers,  lakes  and  trees 
brought  others.  Then  the  combination  of  scenes 
as  a  combination  brought  other  thoughts. 


24        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Now  permit  me  to  say  that  thoughts  cannot 
jtimp  a  great  distance.  It  is  impossible  for  the 
infant  of  only  a  few  days  to  jump  at  one  bound 
into  the  thoughts  of  a  statesman  or  a  philoso- 
pher. It  takes  years  to  reach  great  thoughts, 
and  the  whole  way  is  paved  with  lesser  thoughts. 

As  it  is  with  individuals  so  it  has  been  with 
the  world;  it  took  thousands  of  thinkers  to  pre- 
pare the  world  for  such  magazines  oT  thought  as 
Sir  Charles  Darwin,  Iluxlev  and  Alfred  Russell 
Wallace.  The  intermediate  t^xinkers  as  a\c11  as  the 
intermediate  thoughts  between  the  lowest  and 
the  *  highest,  are  necessary  to  hold  the  frame- 
work of  thought,  as  well  as  of  thinkers,  together. 

If  this  is  so  the  Bibles  and  the  religions  of  the 
past  -vv^ere  quite  as  necessary  in  their  day  and 
generation  as  the  thought  of  toda^^  is  to  the 
great  future.  As  the  past  laid  the  foundation 
for  the  present,  so  we  are  now  la3^ing  the  foun- 
dation for  the  greater  thoughts  and  thinkers  of 
the  future.  In  laying  a'fotmdation  we  dig  deep; 
and  the  higher  we  are  to  build  the  deeper  we  dig 
for  the  foundation,  so,  for  the  superstructure  we 
are  to  build  we  must  lay  a  foundation  in  past 
ages. 

The  Bible  has  its  place  in  the  iiearts  of  the  peo- 
ple; ^^e  must  not  too  rashly  tear  it  out.  When 
it  is  discovered  that  our  Bible  is  only  one  of  the 
many  Bibles  of  the  past,  and  that  it  takes  its 
place  as  a  foundation  stone  with  all  like  produc- 
tions of  former  ages  and  nations,  then  the  Bible 
worshipers  and  the  Bible  haters  v^ill  all  meet  on 
one   common   ground.     We,    in  this  age  of  the 


INTRODUCTORY  THOUGHTS.  25 

world,  above  all  ages  and  peoples  profess  to  be 
liberal  and  free;  therefore  it  behooves  us  above  all 
people  to  examine  all,  and  to  try  to  interpret  in 
the  light  of  today  the  voices  of  the  past.  I  am 
sure  our  study  of  the  Bible,  if  properly  conduct- 
ed and  diligently  and  persistently  pursued  will 
place  us  where  we  can  be  the  teachers  of  teach- 
ers. 

With  the  understanding  that  we  neither  en- 
dorse nor  condemn  as  a  v^hole,  the  book  called 
the  Bible — a  book  which  is  at  once  so  revered 
and  detested,  let  us  begin  our  investigations. 

The  Bible  is  usually  spoken  of  as  one  book, 
vv'hich  it  Is  not;  as  though  God  made  it  in  heaven 
and  handed  it  down  to  us.  With  those  who  talk 
thus  it  is  the  infallible  Word  of  God.  Such  will 
seldom  tolerate  an^^  criticism;  Avith  them  the  Bi- 
ble was  infallibly  written,  unmistakably  translat- 
ed and  miraculousl3'  preserved.  On  this  subject 
Rev.  T.  DeWitt  Talmage,  in  one  of  his.  Taberna- 
cle sermons,  has  the  following: 

"A  London  fog  has  settled  down  upon  some  of  the 
churches  and  ministers,  in  the  shape  of  what  is  called 
'advanced  thought.'  Without  a  single  exception  all 
such  deny  the  full  inspiration  of  the  scriptures.  The 
book  of  Genesis  is  to  them  an  allegor3%  and  much  of 
the  Bible  a  myth,  and  they  philosophize  and  reason, 
and  guess,  and  evolute  *  *  *  The  Bible  is  no  more  cer- 
tainly- inspired  than  it  has  been  divinely  protected  in 
its  present  shape.  *  *  *  During  the  last  eight  hundred 
years  it  would  have  been  impossible  to  have  made  any 
important  changes  in  the  Bible.  *  *  *  The  fact  that  the 
Bible,  notwithstanding  all  the  infuriate  assaults  on  all 
sides,  stands  intact,  is  a  miracle^  and  a  mirack  isGod«" 


26        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

This  quotation  might  be  lengthened  almost  in- 
definitely but  more  of  the  same  kind  ^vould  neith- 
er add  to  the  dignity  nor  weight  of  the  argument 
of  that  class  of  theologues  which  is  now  being 
labelled  and  prepared  for  the  shelf  of  the  anti- 
quarian. 

Perhaps  it  -would  not  be  amiss  to  reply  to  the 
supposed  arguments  of  this  great  preacher  seria- 
tim. 

1.  Something  akin  to  a  London  fog  has  caus- 
ed ^'advanced  thought"  to  deny  the  full,  that  is, 
the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  scriptures.  I  need 
not  here  repeat  the  argument  already  made  to 
convince  my  readers  that  no  scripture,  that  is, 
no  writings,  can  be  inspired.  '  Our  Bibles  can 
neither  breathe  nor  think,  therefore  they  cannot 
by  any  possibility  be  inspired.  Men,  women  and 
children  can  be  inspired  according  to  their  ca- 
pacity to  take  in  what  may  be  presented  to  their 
senses  or  to  their  inward  consciousness.  But  as 
T.  L.  Harris  said: 

"No  two  men  in  creation  think  aUke; 

No  two  men  in  creation  look  alike; 

No  two  men  in  creation  are  alike. 

No  worlds,  or  suns,  or  heavens  but  are  distinct 

And  wear  a  separate  beauty.    Not  a  star 

But  differs  from  the  star  that  nearest  seems 

And  most  congenial  to  its  own  pure  state. 

And  this  unlikeness  grows  with  all  their  growth. '^ 

Creeds  dissolve  the  soul, 
Corrode  and  eat  the  fibres  of  the  heart; 


INTRODUCTORY  THOUGHTS.  27 

Make  alabaster  images  ablaze 

With  sunshine  on  great  heaven's  imperial  height 

Seem  dark  and  foul  as  fiends  from  Acheron. 

Creeds  are  the  leaden  weights  dead  corps-men  wear 
When  they  are  buried  from  lone  ship  at  sea, 
Freighted  wherewith  thej'  never  rise  again. 


Why  should  we  cease  to  feed  on  luscious  grapes 
Because  the  ass  loves  thistles?    Why  refuse 
To  road  with  loving  ejQ,  more  loving  heart, 
The  l)eautiful  Evangel  that  our  Lord 
Hath  writ  in  diamond  letters  on  the  skies, 
In  tracery  radiant  as  his  blessed  smile, 
Because,  in  monasteries  old  and  grim, 
Some  lean  celibate,  feverish  and  a-thirst, 
With  topS3'-turv3^  brain,  forbids  us  to? 
The  thirst  of  knowledge  never  made  man  bad. 


O  how  vain 
Creed-building  looks  to  free  and  cultured  minds! 
The  swallow's  nest  of  mud  beneath  the  eaves 
Holds  not  the  swan's  golden-feathered  brood. 

If  thou  wouldst  make  thj^  thought,  O  man,  the  home 
Where  other  minds  may  habit,  build  it  large. 
Make  its  vast  roof  translucent  to  the  skies, 
And  let  the  upper  glory  dawn  therein, 
*Till  morn  and  evening,  circling  round,  shall  drop 
Their  jeweled  flames  of  sun-flame  and  of  stars. 
Build  thou  that  home  upon  a  mountain  top 
Where  all  free  winds  shall  have  space  to  blow. 

Inspiration  alwa3^s  takes  the  inspired  one  as 
be  is;  thus  one  nia3^  be  inspired  to  pray^and 
another  under  the  same  circumstances  may    be 


28        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

inspired  to  s^vear.  Inspiration  is  natural  alike 
in  all  nations  and  ages.  Moses  was  undoubted- 
ly inspired;  that  was  good  for  himself.  Under 
that  inspiration  he  may  have  said  and  written 
many  things  which  were  good  for  others.  The 
inspiration  was  not  in  the  things  written,  but 
behind  them.  That  inspiration  came  to  Moses*- 
a  man;  and  it  came  to  him  because  he  was  a 
man.  Now  we  have  men  in  this  age  of  the  world, 
and  if  mankind  can  be  inspired  why  should  in- 
spiration cease  with  one  or  even  with  one  hund- 
red men. 

The  trouble  with  Mr.  Talmage  is,  that  with 
him,  as  with  many  others  distance  lends  enchant- 
ment to  the  view.  He  over  estimates  the  inspi- 
ration vouchsafed  to  those  who  he  supposes 
wrote  the  Bible,  and  under  estimates  that  given 
to  other  ages  and  nations.  While  the  Higher 
Critics  admit  that  Bible  writers  were  inspired, 
they  do  not  believe  that  other  nations  were 
brought  into  existence  to  be  abandoned.  They, 
too,  had  their  inspired  leaders  and  prophets  who 
held  communion  with  superior  intelligences. 

2.  Mr.  Talmage  urges  that  these  preachers  of 
"advanced  thought,"  acknowledge  that  the  book 
of  Genesis  is  an  allegory  and  some  other  portions 
of  the  Bible  a  myth. 

In  this  he  is  right.  It  is  now  demonstrated 
that  the  world  did  not  come  into  existence  six 
thousand  years  ago.  No  enlightened  person  now 
believes  that  the  two  contradictory  histories  of 
creation  told  in  the  first  and  second  chapters  of 
Genesis  arc  both  true;  very  few  believe  that  the 


INTRODUCTORY  THOUGHTS  .  29 

first  woman  was  made  of  cue  of  man's  ribs; 
that  the  eating  of  fruit  brought  death  with  all 
its  concomitants  into  the  world;  that  God  made 
the  world  and  then  repented  of  having  done  it; 
that  in  a  fit  of  wrath  he  destroyed  it  with  a  uni- 
versal deluge  of  water;  that  he  repented  of  that 
and  placed  a  rainbow  in  the  sky  lest  he  should 
forget  himself  and  repeat  that  folly;  that  God 
came  down  to  see  the  Tower  of  Eabel;  that  on 
another  ocassion  he  came  down  to  interview 
Abraham  and  Mr.  and  Airs.  Lot  concerning  the 
destruction  of  Sodom;  that  Mrs.  Lot  turned  into 
f^  pillar  of  salt  because  she  turned  back  to  see 
fthe  destruction  of  her  home.  But  as  this  will 
^naturally  come  up  in  its  proper  place  we  will  not 
(DOW  follow  it  farther. 

3.  The  Divine  protection  and  miraculous  pres- 
iers,^ation  of  the  Bible  in  all  its  purity  is  a  proof 
to  the  Kev.  Mr.  Talmage  of  its  divinitj^  That 
argument  Vv^ould  prove  sin  divine.  Sin  is  old; 
some  power  has  preserved  it  unchanged.  Has 
sin  not  been  "assaulted  on  every  side?"  and  :till 
it  exists!  Mr.  Talmage  himself  has  devoted  his 
whole  life — all  his  wonderful  talents  to  its  des- 
truction, but  there  it  is,  older  than  the  Eib'e, 
and  at  the  same  time  as-j-oung  as  at  the  last  mc- 
ment.  Sin  is  on  the  increase;  how  can  this  be, 
with  all  the  batteries  of  the  great  army  of  clerg^-- 
men  playing  on  it  every  moment  for  thousands 
of  3'ears.  Is  not  this  a  proof  of  a  miraculous 
power  sustaining  and  protecting  sin? 

A  wise  man  once  said  "cursed  is  he  that  put- 
teth  the  cup  to  his  neighbor's  lip."    A  warfare  has 


30         THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

been  kept  up  against  rum  from  that  day  to  this; 
yet  right  in  Mr.  Talmage's  own  city,  where  he 
and  hundreds  of  others  fight  it  constantly,  two 
dollars  is  paid  for  strong  drink  for  every  dollar 
that  is  paid  for  bread;  shall  we  therefore  say 
that  whisky  is  divine,  and  protected  by  a  mira- 
cle-working God?  Brother  Talmage  your  logic 
is  weak! 

4.  There  has  been  little  need  of  changes  in  the 
Bible  in  the  last  eight  hundred  years;  the  changes 
before  that  time  were  quite  sufficient.  In  the 
preface  to  the  Unitarian  Version  of  the  New- 
Testament  will  be  found  the  following:  * 'There 
v^ere  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament 
one  hundred  and  thirty  thousand  various  read- 
ings." One  would  think  that  many  changes  made 
before  the  time  mentioned  by  Mr.  Talmage  would 
be  quite  sufficient  without  having  many  great 
changes  made  in  the  last  eight  hundred  years. 
The  above  is  confirmed  by  the  *' Companion  to 
the  Revised  New  Testament,"  a  book  issued  by  the 
revisers  themselves.  Among  their  reasons  for  re- 
vising the  New  Testament  they  give  the  following: 

"The  number  of  various  readings  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment has  been  differently  estimated  at  different  times. 
Nor  could  this  have  been  otherwise.  Every  new  MSS 
which  has  been  discovered  increases  the  amount, 
and  every  more  accurate  examination  of  already 
known  MSS.s,  tends  to  the  same  results.  Hence, 
while  the  varieties  of  reading  in  the  New  Testament 
were  reckoned  at  about  thirty  thousand  in  the  last 
century,  they  are  generally  referred  to  as  amounting  to 
no  less  than  one  hundred  and  £fty  thousand  at  the 
avesent  dav." 


INTRODUCTORY  THOUGHTS.  31 

The  same  authority,  in  giving  reasons  for  alter- 
ations made  in  the  New  Testament  sa^-s: 

"They  are  all  to  be  traced  to  one  of  two  causes — eith- 
er to  a  change  in  the  Greek  text  which  it  was  found 
necessary  to  adopt,  or  to  change  of  translation  w^hich 
strict  fidelity  to  the  original  seemed  to  require." 

All  this  proves  that  if  there  has  been  little 
change  in  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  in  the 
last  eight  hundred  3^ears  there  were  plentj^  of 
changes  made  before  that  time. 

Again  this  same  authorit3'  sa3^s: 

"It,  (the  authorized  version  of  the  New  Testament) 
was  commenced  about  1604,  when  the  above  named 
Greek  texts  were,  in  one  form  or  another  generally 
circulated.  Which  of  them,  we  ask  with  eagerness^ 
formed  the  original  from  which  our  common  English 
t;-anslation  was  derived?  To  this  question  the  answer 
is,  that  Beza's  edition  of  15S9  was  the  one  usually 
followed.  It  had  been  based  on  Stephen's  edition  of 
1550,  and  that  again  had  been  from  the  fourth  edition 
of  Erasmus,  published  in  1527.  Such  is  the  parent  of 
the  authorized  Version — Beza,  Stephens,  Erasmus. 
"What  Manuscript  authority,  let  us  ask,  is  thus  repre- 
sented? ***  For  the  Apocalypse  he  (Erasmus)  had  on- 
ly one  mutilated  manuscript.  He  had  thus  no  docu- 
mentary materials  for  publishing  a  complete  edition  of 
the  New  Testament.  The  consequenscs  would  have 
been  that  some  verses  would  have  been  wanting  had 
not  Erasmus  taken  the  Vulgate  and  conjecturallv  trans- 
lated the  Latin  into  Greek.  Hence  has  arisen  the  re- 
markable fact,  that  in  the  text  from  which  our  author- 
ized version  was  formed,  and  in  the  ordinary  uncriti- 
cal editions  of  the  Greek,  current  at  the  present  dav» 
there  were,  and  are,  words  in  the  professed  original 
for    which    no    divine    authority    can    be  pleaded,   but 


32         THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

which  are  entirely  due  to  the  learning  and  imagination 
of  Erasmus." 

Once  more,  Mr.  Talmage  says:  "The  fact  that 
the  Bible,  notwithstanding  all  the  infuriate  as- 
saults on  all  sides,  stands  intact,  shows  me  that 
it  is  a  miracle,  and  a  miracle  is  of  God."  I  again 
ask  would  not  the  logic  of  that  statement  make 
sin  a  miracle  of  God?  Look  at  the  attacks  made 
upon  it,  yet  it  is  here  thous..Tids  of  years  older 
than  the  Bible,  and  at  the  same  time  as  fresh  as 
the  last  new  born  moment. 

But  I  am  led  to  ask,  has  the  Bible  proved  it- 
self infallibly  correct  and  is  it  intact?  Then  why 
do  we  have  the  Rev.  Mr.  Talmage's  attempts  to 
save  it  from  ci'iticism?  If  the  Bible  was  not 
somewhat  vulnerable  why  do  we  have  the  Revis- 
ed Version  thrown  out  as  a  "tab"  to  "advanced" 
*Vhale?" 

Mr.  Talmage  next  acknowledges  that  tk^re  are 
mistakes  of  copyists  in  the  Bible,  but  they 
amount  to  nothing  more  than  it  would  to  drop 
the  letter  u  out  in  spelling  the  word  f-o-r-t-li.  In 
no  case  do  they  change  any  doctrine.  ]n  answer 
to  this  I  will  again  quote  from  the  "Companion 
to  the  Revised  Version." 

**A  universal  experience  has  proved  that-  nothing  is 
more  difficult  than  to  get  any  large  amount  of  mere 
copying  done  with  absolute  correctness.  The  tran- 
scriber may  be  careless  or  incompetent,  and  then,  of 
course,  his  work  will  be  badly  done.  No  doubt  this 
has  given  rise  to  not  a  few  of  the  mistakes,  which 
appear  in  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament.  Some 
of  the  copyists  knew  very  little  of  what  they  were  do- 
ing, while  others  disliked  the  drudgery;  aud  so  from 


INTRODUCTORY  THOUGHTS.  33 

ignorance  or  -weariness  they  fell  into  error.  But  even 
the  most  skillful  and  patient  of  them  might  easily  go 
astray  in  the  work  of  transcription." 

In  another  place  this  same  * 'Companion"  says: 
"A  committee  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  in 
examining  six  different  editions  of  the  authorized 
version  discovered  nearly  twenty-four  thousand 
variations  in  the  text  and  punctuation." 

**The  changes  amount  to  nothing,"  says  the  elo- 
quent doctor.  Let  us  see.  In  Rev.  \aii.  13,  the 
Old  Version  represents  John  as  saying:  "And  I 
beheld  and  heard  an  angel  flying  through  the 
midst  of  heaven,  saj^ng  with  a  loud  voice,  v^^oe, 
woe  to  the  inhabiters  of  earth  by  reason  of  the 
other  voices  of  the  trumpet  of  the  three  angels, 
which  are  yet  to  sound."  The  New^  Version 
changes  the  angel  to  an  eagle.  The  Old  Version 
had  talking  snakes,  and  talking  donkej-s;  the  New- 
goes  one  better,  and  has  talking  eagles.  The  Old, 
calls  Jesus  the  Son  of  God;  in  many  places  the 
ncAv  changes  this  phrase  to  ''The  serv^ant  of  God." 

The  Old  Version  has  King  Agrippa  almost 
persuaded  to  be  a  Christian;  The  New^-  has 
him  sa}-;  "With  little  persuasion  thou  w^ouldst 
fain  make  me  a  Christian."  See  Acts  xxvi.  28. 
The  three  which  "bear  record  in  heaven"  and  the 
"God  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  in  the  Old  Version, 
are  among  the  things  w4sely  left  out  of  the  New. 
In  the  light  of  all  this,  how  ridiculous  are  the 
words  of  Dr.  Talmage  about  believing  "the  whole 
Bible,"  accepting  the  Bible  "in  its  entirety,"  and 
telling  his  audience  that,  "from  scalp  to  heel"  he 
believes  the  Bible  "from  lid  to  lid." 


34       THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

I  feel  to  beg  the  pardon  of  my  readers  for  allow- 
ing a  popular  minister's  popular  sermon  to  thus 
switch  me  off  from  my  argum.ent. 

A  few  words  here  on  searching  the  scriptures 
cannot  come  in  amiss. 

In  John  Y.  38,  39,  Jesus  said:  ''And  ye  have  not 
his  word  abiding  in  you;  for  v/hom  he  hath  sent,, 
him  ye  believe  not.  Search  the  scriptures;  for  in 
them  ye  think  ye  have  eternal  life;  and  they  are 
they  which  testify  of  me." 

The  expression,  *'his  word,"  does  not  refer  to 
the  Bible,  nor  to  any  portion  of  it;  but  to  an  in- 
spiration coming  to  themselves.  This  v^ill  be  ful- 
ly proved  in  this  and  in  subsequent  chapters. 

This  is  generally  taken  as  an  admonition  to 
search  the  scriptures;  but  it  is  not  so.  The  Re- 
vised Version  gives  the  correct  rendering  when  it 
says:  ''Ye  search  the  scriptures  because  3^e  think 
that  in  them  ye  have  eternal  life  and  these  are 
they  ^vhich  bear  witness  of  me."  The  Emphatic 
Diaglott,  said  by  Zion's  Watchman,  to  be  "the 
best  translation  of  the  New  Testament  extant," 
renders  this  text  as  follows: 

"You  search  the  scriptures,  because  you  think 
by  them  to  obtain  aionian  life  and  they  are  those 
testifying  of  me."  The  Douay  (Catholic)  Bible  is 
the  same.  Jesus  is  simply  telling  the  Jews  that 
they  search  the  scriptures,  because  they  hoped  by 
reading  them  to  get  eternal  life.  He  does  not  Gay 
they  would  thus  get  eternal  life.  He-  sa^^s:  "You 
search  the  scriptures,  and  they  testify  of  me."  I 
tell  my  audiences  the  same  thing  when  I  say  you 


INTRODUCTORY  THOUGHTS.  35 

are  Bible  readers,  and  the  Bible  proves  Spiritual- 
ism. 

This  text  then,  does  not  leave  us  to  infer  that 
Jesus  regarded  the  Bible  or  any  part  of  it  as  the 
infallible  word  of  God;  but,  as  they  thought  that 
in  that  way  they  w^ere  to  obtain  eternal  life,  they 
were  continually  searching  the  scriptures  which 
taught  his  doctrines  and  they  did  not  know  it. 
His  contention  was,  whether  right  or  wrong, 
that  their  own  writings  or  scriptures  would  sus- 
tain him  instead  of  them. 

Paul  made  a  similar  argument  when  he  went 
to  Athens,  among  the  enlightened  Grecians  and 
quoted  their  own  poets  to  them.  He  said:  ''For 
certain  of  your  own  poets  have  said,  'for  we  are 
also  his  offspring.'  "  Paul  did  not  urge  that  Cle- 
anthes  the  Sicilian  poet  was  plenarily  inspired. 
He  only  intended  to  say  that  he  w^as  preaching 
no  new  doctrine — that  they  would  find  his  senti- 
ments uttered  b\'  their  own  inspired  poets.  So 
when  we  find  that  the  Bible,  which  the  church 
thinks  was  ma.de  for  its  exclusive  benefit,  sustains 
our  viev^'s  it  is  well  for  us  to  inform  it  that  its 
own  Bible  is  on  our  side  of  the  question. 

Christians  believe  certain  things  because  they 
are  in  the  Bible;  we  do  not;  we  believe  they 
are  in  the  Bible  beca.use  the  writers  of  that  book 
thought  the^v^  were  true;  and  we  believe  them  be- 
cause in  our  estimation  they  are  true.  They 
would  be  quite  as  true  if  they  had  never  found 
their  way  into  that  book.  While  we  are  neither 
afraid  nor  ashamed  to  go  alone,  we  are  glad  to 
find  that  some  people,,  even  in  the  dark  ages  of 


36        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

the  world,  saw  and  recorded  these  truths.  It  isf 
well  to  occasionally  show  those  who  think  the 
Bible  Avas  made  especially  for  them  that  they  do- 
not  believe  the  Bible;  exactly  as  Jesus  showed  the 
Jews  that  they  did  not  believe  their  own  scrip- 
tures.   In  verse  45,  of  this  chapter  Jesus  said: 

"Do  not  think  that  I  will  accuse  you  to  the  father;; 
There  is  one  that  accnseth  you,  even  Moses,  in  whom' 
ye  trust.  For  had  you  believed  Moses  ye  would  have 
believed  me;  for  he  wrote  of  me.  But  if  ye  believe  not 
his  writings  how  shall  ye  believe  my  words?" 

In  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  16,  the  writer  says: 

"And  that  from  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  sal- 
vation, through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  All 
scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profita- 
ble for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction  for  instruc- 
tion in  righteousness;  that  the  man  of  God  may  be- 
perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works." 

I  would  first  call  the  reader's  attention  to  the 
Tact  that  the  word  "scripture"  here  can  by  no  pos- 
sibilit3'-  refer  to  the  New  Testament.  So  if  there 
\vas  a  thorough  furnishing  for  every  good  work 
in  the  ''all  scripture"  here  mentioned,  it  was  the 
scripture  which  this  man  had  studied  from  a 
child.  The  New  Testament  was  not  all  ^vritten- 
^when  this  was  Avritten,  nor  -was  any  of  it  as  yet 
compiled.  These  scriptures  were  the  same  that 
Timothy  was  instructed  in,  when  a  child,  by  his 
mother  and  grand-mother.  2  Tim.  i.  5.  Timo- 
thy's father  was  a  heathen,  and  it  remains  to  be 
proved  that  the  scriptures  he  studied  in  his  child- 
hood were  not  heathen  scriptures. 

Now  I  will  draw  the  attention  of  the  student 


INTRODUCTORY  THOUGHTS.  37 

to  the  fact  that  the  word  is,  in  this  text  is  in 
italic  letters.  That  means  that  there  is  no  word 
in  the  original  corresponding  with  it.  The  Re- 
vised Bible  has  it  as  follows: 

"All  scripture  inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable  for 
teaching,  for  reproof,  for  con-cction,  for  instruction 
which  is  righteousness." 

This  translation  is  very  nearly  correct.  I  think 
I  like  the  Emphatic  Diaglott  better;  it  reads  as 
follows: 

"All  scripture  divinely  inspired,  is  indeed  profitable 
for  teaching,  for  cotivieiion,  for  correction,  for  that  dis- 
cipline which  is  in  righteousness." 

The  word  rendered  scripture,  in  the  text  is 
graphe,  and  simply  means  writings.  No  transla- 
tion could  be  more  literal  than,  ''All  writing  di- 
vinely inspired,  is  profitable."  While  this  may 
liave  included  the  Old  Testament,  it  did  not  ex- 
clude any  other  inspired  writings;  and  as  before 
intimated,  it  could  not  by  any  stretch  of  the  im- 
agination be  made  to  coyer  the  New  Testament, 
^vhich  was  not  yet  written. 

With  one  more  tQ:s.t  the  argument  on  this  point 
must  close.    In  2  Pet,  i,  19-21,  the  writer  says: 

"We  have  also  a  more  sure  word  of  prophecy  where- 
-unto  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed,  as  unto  a  light 
that  shineth  in  a  dark  place,  until  the  day  dawn  and 
the  day  star  arise  in  jour  hearts;  knowing  this  first, 
that  no  prophecy  of  the  scripture  is  of  any  private  in- 
terpretation. For  the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time 
by  the  will  of  man;  but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

I  do  not  think  the  ''more  sure  word  of  proph- 
ecy," here  introduced,  refers  to  any  written  proph- 


38       THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM, 

ecy.  We  shall  yet  learn,  that  the  word,  word 
refers  to  mediumship,  or  inspiration.  The  ''word 
of  prophecy,"  refers  to  something  which  came  to 
them  individually;  not  to  those  who  lived  a 
thousand  years  before  they  were  bom.  Peter  had 
just  referred  to  the  wonderful  manifestation  on 
the  mountain  at  the  time  Jesus  was  transfigured^ 
and  Moses  and  Elias  both  materialized,  also  he 
heard  a  voice.  Here  was  witnessed  the  most  of 
the  phenomena  which  occasionally  occurs  today. 
This  was  proof  to  the  writer  that  they  had  not 
followed  ''cunningly  devised  fables."  See  verse 
16.  Then  after  describing  the  phenomena  on  the 
mountain,  he  says:  "we  have  also  a  more  sure 
word  of  prophecy."  That  is,  to  say,  we  are  al- 
so inspired.  We  do  not  depend  wholly  on  physi- 
cal manifestations,  such  as  transfigurations,  ma- 
terializations and  voices,  but  we  have  something 
more  sure— an  inspiration— "a  more  sure  word 
of  prophecy."  This  prophecy  is  an  inspiration 
which  shines  for  us— about  our  feet— not  some- 
thing  which  shone  for  our  grand-parents. 

After  that  he  refers  to  the  predictions  of  old 
time  which  came  by  the  same  power — by  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost — the  pneumatos  hagion — that  is  spirit 
power.  The  fact  is,  there  is  not  one  prophecy  of 
the  Bible  which  was  designed  to  apply  to  the 
distant  future.  It  will  be  shown  in  the  proper 
place  that  the  most  of  the  so-called  predictions 
of  the  Bible  were  not  predictions  in  the  sense  of 
being  prognostications  of  the  future;  the  prophets 
were  not  prognosticators. 


CHAPTER    II. 

WORD  OF  GOD— WHAT  IT  IS    NOT    AND    WHAT  IT  IS. 

What  the  Westminister  Confession  of  Faith  Says— Dean 
Burgon  on  the  Word  of  God— An  Adventist  Divine  on 
the  Same— Reph'— What  Samuel  Thought— Word  of 
God  Through  a  Aledium  to  Rehoboam— Word  of  God 
to  John  the  Baptist— Word  of  God  Quick  and 
Powerful— Heb.  vi.  12,  in  a  New  Light— Talent 
Hidden  Under  a  Napkin— Word  of  God  and  Spirit  of 
Prophecy— Words  of  God  to  and  through  Balaam— Pri- 
vate Sittings  with  Ezekiel  in  order  to  Obtain  the  Word- 
Word  of  the  Lord  to  the  Child  Samuel— Word  of  the 
Lord  through  "Man  of  God"  to  Jeroboam — Famine  for 
W'ord  of  the  Lord— Word  Compared  with  Scripture. — 
W'ords  of  the  Lord  spoken  through  the  Mouth  of 
Jeremiah— "Is  there  any  Word  from  the  Lord?" — Dreams 
and  the  Word  of  the  Lord— Word  not  in  False  Prophets — 
Word  Exorcises  Demons— Word  in  the  Heart — Word 
among  the  Spiritual  Gifts— Word  of  the  Lord  in  Elijah's 
Mouth— Word  of  the  Lord  Against  Four  Hundred  False 
Prophets. 

Let  us  next  attempt  to  find  out  what  in  the 
Bible  is  called  ''The  Word  of  God,"  "Jhe  Word 
of  the  Lord,"  "His  Word,"  "My  Word,"  "Thy 
Word,"  etc.,  etc. 

I  shall  attempt  to  show  that  such  terms,  in  the 
Bible,  never  mean  anything  else  than  meditimship 
or  its  products 


40        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

These  terms  are  used  every  day  in  the  pulpit,  and 
every  Sunday  in  the  Sunday  School,  as  belonging 
to  the  Bible.  In  order  that  the  reader  shall  get 
the  old  idea  of  the  word  of  God,  before  I  give  the 
new,  I  will  make  three  quotations  from  ortho- 
dox and  Adventist  standard  authorities.  The 
first  is  from  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith. 
In  that  document  held  by  our  fathers  almost  as 
sacred  as  the  Bible,  we  read: 

**The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture  *  *  *  dependeth 
wholly  upon  God,  the  author  thereof;  and,  therefore  is 
to  be  received,  because  it  is  the  word  of  God  *  *  *  and 
the  perfection  thereof  are  arguments  whereby  it  doth 
abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God,  and 
establish  our  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible 
truth  and  divine  authoritj^  thereof." 

Here  the  assertion  is  made  again  and  again, 
that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God.  This  is  not 
an  isolated  expression.  In  proof  of  that,  I  will 
present  a  testimony  from  no  less  a  church  light 
than  Dean  Burgon,  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  An- 
drew D.  White,  in  his  ** Conflict  between  Science 
and  Theology,"  quotes  the  good  Dean  as  follows: 

**The  Bible  is  none  other  than  the  voice  of  Him  that 
sitteth  upon  the  throne!  Every  book  of  it,  every  chap- 
ter of  it,  every  word  of  it,  every  letter  of  it  is  the  di- 
rect utterance  of  the  Most  High.  The  Bible  is  none 
other  than  the  word  of  God— not  some  parts  of  it  more, 
and  some  parts  less,  but  all  alike— the  utterance  of 
Him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne— absolute,  faultless, 
unerring,  supreme,^' 

Let  it  be  remembered,  I  am  not  making  these 
quotations   to   show  the  extravagance  of  these 


THE  WORD   OF  GOD.  41 

men  and  creeds  in  asserting  the  faultlessness  of 
the  Bible,  I  am  only  illustrating  the  fact  that 
all  claim  the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God.  I 
have  one  more  quotation;  this  time  from  the 
leading  light  of  the  Seventh  Day  Adventist 
Church.  I  wish  I  had  space  to  make  the  quota- 
tion three  times  as  long.  I  will  content  m^'self 
with  quoting  a  single  paragraph.  I  assure  my 
readers  that  quoting  three  times  as  much  more 
would  only  show  the  ability  of  these  people,  who 
think  themselves  to  be  about  the  only  people  who 
know  anything  about  the  Bible,  to  deal  in  ut- 
terly groundless  assertions. 
This  writer,  Rev.  Alonzo  T.  Jones,  sa3^s: 

"For  anybody  to  profess  to  believe  the  Bible  for 
what  it  is, — the  Word  of  God, — and  at  the  same  time 
not  allow  that  the  Bible  must  be  the  leading  book  in  all 
education,  arc  two  things  that  will  not  hold  together 
at  alb  The  Bible  claims  for  itself  that  it  is  the  Word 
of  God.  It  comes  to  men  as  the  Word  of  God.  If  it  is 
not  accepted  and  held  as  the  Word  of  God,  it  is  no 
more  than  any  other  purely  national  book.  To  believe 
the  Bible,  is  to  accept  it  as  tlie  Word  of  God;  for  that  is 
the  only  claim  the  Bible  makes  for  itself.  Not  to  ac- 
cept the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God,  is  not  to  believe 
the  Bible  at  all.  The  Bible,  then,  being  the  Word  of 
God,  is  supreme  knowledge  and  supreme  authority  up- 
on every  subject  that  is  true.  There  cannot  be  any 
truer  knowledge  than  that  of  God;  there  cannot  be  any 
higher  authority  than  that  of  the  Word  of  God." 

Here,  in  about  fifteen  lines,  the  Bible  is  eight 
times  said  to  be  the  word  of  God.  Moreover 
this  author  says:  ''The  Bible  claims  itself  to  be 


42        THE   BIBLE  AND   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

the  word  of  God."  Now  no  such  claim  is  made 
by  the  Bible  for  itself.  The  reader  need  have  no 
fear  in  ofiering  a  chromo  for  any  place  in  the 
Bible  where  such  a  claim  is  made.  This  is  an 
important  assumption  of  the  church,  and  leads 
to  hundreds  of  other  errors.  It  should  be  met 
thoroughly. 

The  term  ''Word  of  the  Lord,"  occurs  ninety- 
eight  times  in  the  Bible;  "Word  of  God"  forty-six' 
times;  "Words  of  God"  seven  times;  "His  Word," 
thirty  times;  "Thy  Word,"  forty-four  times;  "My 
Word,"  seventeen  times.  This  makes  a  grand  to- 
tal of  two  hundred  and  forty-two  opportunities 
to  prove  the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  and 
yet  these  ministers  who  have  been  asserting  it 
for  generations,  cannot  find  one  text  that  looks 
that  -w^ay. 

In  order  to  prove  this  I  will  refer  to  a  few  of 
the  numerous  places  where  these  terms  occur. 

The  first  time  the  expression  the  "Word  of  God" 
occurs  in  the  Bible  is  in  1  Sam.  ix.  27.  There  Sam- 
uel and  Saul  were  taking  a  morning  walk.  The 
record  says: 

"And  as  tliej  were  going  down  to  the  end  of  the  Ci- 
ty, Samuel  said  to  Saul,  bid  the  servant  pass  on  be- 
fore us,  (and  he  passed  on,)  but  stand  thou  still  awhile, 
that  I  may  show  thee  the  word  of  God." 

It  was  not  a  Bible  that  Samuel  designed  to 
show  him,  but  he  did  design  to  give  him  some 
tests.  He  immediately  gave  liini  messages  which 
proved  to  be  tests.  He  there  and  then  anointed 
Saul  to  be  King  of  Israel,  or  as  it  is  expressed, 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  43 

* 'captain  of  his  inheritance."    Then  in  verse  2,  of 
the  next  chapter  begin  the  communications  which 
proved  to  be  tests. 
1st.  He  says: 

**\Yhen  thou  art  departed  from  me  today,  then  thou 
s>>alt  find  two  men  by  Rachel's  sepulchre  in  the  bor- 
der of  Benjamin  at  Zelzah;  and  they  will  say  unto  thee, 
the  asses  which  thou  weniest  to  seek  are  found;  and 
lo,  thj'  father  hath  left  the  care  of  the  asses,  and  sor- 
roweth  for  you,  saying,  what  shall  I  do  for  my  son?" 

This  was  a  test;  Saul's  father  was  at  that  time 
sorrowing  for  him. 

2nd.  The  next  test  was: 

"Then  shalt  thou  go  on  forward  from  thence,  and 
thou  shalt  come  to  the  plain  of  Tabor,  and  there  shall 
meet  thee  three  men  going  up  to  God  to  Bethel,  one 
carrying  three  kids,  and  another  carrying  three  loaves 
of  bread,  and  another  carrying  a  bottle  of  wine;  and 
they  will  salute  thee,  and  give  thee  two  loaves  of 
bread;  w^hich  thou  shalt  receive  at  their  hands." 

3rd.  "After  that  thou  shalt  come  to  the  hill  of  God 
where  is  a  garrison  of  the  Philistines;  and  it  shall  come 
to  pass,  when  thou  art  come  thither,  to  the  city  that 
thou  shalt  meet  a  company  of  prophets  coming  down 
from  the  high  place  with  a  psaltry,  and  a  tabret,  and 
a  pipe  and  a  harp,  before  them,  and  thej'  shall  prophesy 
and  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  will  come  upon  thee,  and  thou 
shalt  prophesy  with  them,  and  shalt  be  turned  into 
another  man.  And  let  it  be  when  these  signs  (tests) 
are  come  unto  thee  that  thou  do  as  occasion  serve  thee; 
for  God  is  with  thee." 

All  this  will  be  found  in  the  first  ten  verses  of 
the  tenth  chapter  of  First  Samuel.  These  w^ere 
direct  messages  from  the  spirit  world,   and  are 


44        THE   BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

called  the  word  of  God.  That  they  proved  to  be 
tests  will  be  proved  by  verse  nine,  which  says: 
**And  it  was  so  that  w-hen  he  turned  his  back  to 
go  from  Samuel,  God  gave  him  another  heartj 
and  all  those  signs  came  to  pass." 

This  scripture  ought  to  be  enough  to  alone 
settle  the  question  as  to  what  the  Word  of  God 
is.  But  I  am  not  writing  for  the  multitude,  but 
for  diligent  students  who,  it  is  presumed  want 
to  know  all  about  the  question;  I  will  therefore 
j)ursue  the. matter  farther. 

It  would  be  interesting,  if  \\^  had  the  time  to 
spare,  before  giving  the  next  evidence  on  this 
point,  to  give  a  histor3^  of  some  of  the  evidences 
of  Shemaiah,  the  one  who  is  here  called  **liie 
man  of  God;"  it  will  suihce  to  say  now  that  the 
term  ''man  of  God,"  wherever  it  occurs  in  the 
Bible,  with  a  single  exception,  means  mediumship, 

I  will  say  before  introducing  the  next  evidence 
that  Rehoboam,  Solomon's  son,  was  king  of  Ju- 
dah;  he  undertook  to  reign  over  all  Israel,  as  his 
father,  Solomon  and  his  grand-father,  David  had 
done;  but  his  tyranny  vras  more  than  the  people 
could  endure;  the  result  was,  that  ten  of  the 
tribes  of  Israel  rebelled,  and  set  up  a  kingdom  of 
their  own,  with  Jereboam  as  their  king.  Reho 
boam  determined  to  go  and  whip  them  in,  and 
got  ready  for  the  battle  when  a  message  was  giv- 
en to  the  king.    The  record  reads  as  follows: 

"But  the  word  of  God  came  unto  Shemaiah  the 
man  of  God,  saying,  speak  unto  Rehoboam,  the  son 
of  Solomon,  king  of  Judah,  and  unto  all  the  house 
of  Judah  and  Benjamin;  and  to  the   remnant  of  the 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  45 

people,  saying,  thus  saith  the  Lord,  ye  shall  not  go 
up  nor  fight  against  j'our  bretheren  the  children  of 
Israel;  return  every  man  to  his  house;  for  this  thing 
is  from  me.  They  hearkened  therefore  to  the  word  of 
the  Lord,  and  returned  to  depart  according  to  the 
word  of  the  Lord.     I  King  xii.  22-24," 

Here  this  message  coming  to  this  Man  of  God, 
or  medium,  is  once  called  the  Word  of  God,  and 
twice  called  the  Word  of  the  Lord.  A  Bible  did 
not  come  to  this  medium,  as  those  must  believe 
who  claim  that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God. 
Only  a  spirit  message  came  to  this  medium. 
Hence,  the  Word  of  Godr  is  mediumship. 

David  who  was  himself  a  prophet,  (See  Acts 
ii,  29,  30.)  always  kept  mediums  around  him. 
One  of  these  mediums  was  Gad  the  seer, 
r.nother  was  Nathan  the  prophet,  David  had 
intimations  in  a  vision  that  he  was  to  build 
a  temple;  he  sent  for  Nathan  the  prophet  to 
speak  w4th  him  about  it;  Nathan  favored  the 
move,  but  when  he  got  off  to  himself  then  he  had 
a  vision  w^hich  told  him  differently.  The  record 
will  be  found  in  I  Chron.  xvii.  3,  4,  and  reads 
as  f'    ows: 

"And  it  came  to  pass  the  same  night  that  the  word 
of  God  came  to  Nathan,  saying,  go  and  tell  David  my 
servant,  thus  saith  the  Lord,  thou  shalt  not  build  me 
an  house  to  dwell  in;  for  I  have  not  dwelt  in  an  house 
since  the  day  I  brought  up  Israel  unto  this  day;  but 
have  gone  from  tent  to  tent  and  from  one  tabernacle 
to  another." 

With  this  message  we  now  have  nothing  to 
do;  I  am  now  only  interested  to  show  that  the 
message  is  called  **thc   Word  of  God."    Thus,  in 


46       THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

every  place  in  the  Bible,  the  Word  of  God  is  a 
direct  message  to  some  one.  In  Luke  iii.  2,  3, 
is  the  following: 

"Annas  and  Caiaphas  being  the  high  priests,  the  word 
of  God  came  to  John  in  the  wilderness.  And  he  came 
into  all  the  country  about  Jordon  preaching  the  bap- 
tism of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins." 

Now  nobody  believes  a  Bible  came  to  John  in 
the  wilderness.  But  an  inspiration,  a  medium- 
ship  did  come  to  him  in  that  place.  In  the 
v/ilderness,  where  Elijah  lived  and  passed  away, 
John  went  for  meditation  and  reflection;  how- 
natural  that  Blijali  should  come  to  him  and  in- 
spire him  under  these  conditions.  John  lived  as 
Elijah  did,  dressed  as  Elijah  did,  went  to  the 
place  where  Elijah  spent  his  days.  He  went 
there  for  development,  so  it  is  supposed;  now 
what  is  more  natural  than  that  the  spirit  of 
Elijah  should  come  to  him?  See  Matt.  xvii.  10, 
11.,  xi.  13,  14.  This  is  the  Word  of  God, 
which  came  to  John  in  the  wilderness.  In  Luke 
xi,  27,  28,  is  another  expression  which  connot  be 
tortured  into  anj^thing  else  than  that  the  Word 
of  God  is  an  especial  message  to  an  especial 
person. 

After  a  certain  woman  had  pronounced  a  bless- 
ing on  Jesus  and  his  mother,  he  saj^s:  * 'Rather 
blessed  are  they  that  hear  the  Word  of  God  and 
keep  it."  That  is  to  say,  rather  blessed  is  the  one 
who  is  inspired,  or  who  receives  spirit  messages, 
than  the  one  who  gives  birth  to  a  person  who 
is  inspired,  as  I  am. 

In  Heb.  iv.  12  the  writer  savs: 


THE   WOKD   OF   GOD.  47 

**For  the  word  of  God  is  quick  and  powerful,  and 
sharper  than  an3^  two  edged  sword,  piercing  even  to 
the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit,  and  of  joints 
and  marrow,  and  is  a  discerner  of  the  thoughts  and 
intents  of  the  heart." 

Here  the  Word  of  God  is  quick;  that  means  liv- 
ing. The  Greek  literally  reads  living  and  power- 
ful. This  does  not  apply  to  Bibles  but  to  pres- 
ent, or  living  inspiration.  More  than  that  it 
discerns  the  thoughts  and  intentions  of  the  heart. 
If  mediumship  does  not  do  that,  what  does? 
Saul  could  not  deceive  the  woman  of  Endor.  I. 
Sam.  xxviii.  8-12.  Mrs.  Jeroboam  could  not 
deceive  the  old,  blind  medium,  Ahijah.  I  Kin.  xiv. 
1,  5-7.  Ananias  and  Sapphira  could  not  deceive 
Peter.  Acts  v.  3,  9.  The  real  meaning  of  this 
passage  is,  the  Word  of  God,  that  is,  medium- 
ship,  is  a  living,  energetic  and  cutting  pow- 
er, discerning  the  thoughts  and  intentions 
of  the  heart.  Heb.  vi.  4-6,  makes  this  distinction 
still  more  plain.    It  sa3^s: 

"For  it  is  impossible  for  those  who  were  once  enlight- 
ened, and  have  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,  and  were 
made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  have  tasted 
of  the  good  word  of  God,  and  the  powers  of  the  world 
to  come,  if  they  shall  fall  away,  to  renew  them  again 
to  repentance;  seeing  they  crucify  to  themselves  the 
Son  of  God  afresh,  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame." 

What  could  more  plainly  refer  to  a  medium 
than  the  expressions,  ''Were  once  enlightened," 
''have  tasted  the  heavenly  gift,"  "were  made 
partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  that  is  spirit  pow- 
er; "Have  tasted  the  good  word  of  God,"  and 
*  'the  powers  of  the  world  to  come. ' '    Mediumship 


48        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

is  enlightening;  it  is  a  heavenly  gift.  It  is  many 
times  in  the  Bible  called  a  gift.  See  Rom.  xii.  6. 
I  Cor.  xii.  7-11.  Verses  27-31.  Eph.  iv.  11-14. 
The  word  "Holy  Ghost,"  comes  from  two  Greek 
words  pneumataka  and  hagion.  Pneumataka 
signifies  spiritual,  hagion  signifies  good  or  conse- 
crated. It  means  a  good  or  consecrated  spirit- 
ual power.  Thus  it  can  refer  to  nothing  else 
than  mediumship.  The  expression  ''powers  of 
the  world  to  come,"  signifies  powers  of  ages  to 
come,  and  is  so  rendered  in  the  Revised  Version. 
Mediumship  does  hold  in  it  the  powers  of  ages 
to  come. 

Now,  if  a  person  turns  his  back  on  his  medium- 
ship  it  will  leave  him,  and  he  cannot  renew  it. 
That  is  what  is  meant  by  this  text.  I  have 
known  many  cases  of  the  kind.  I  am  well  ac- 
quainted with  a  lady  who  had  developed  the 
power  of  taking  spirit  pictures.  She  was  once 
upon  a  time  plying  her  brush  under  spirit  powei 
when  she  heard  the  gate  open  and  shut;  she 
looked  up  and  beheld  her  minister  coming;  she 
thought  it  would  not  do  to  let  him  know  any- 
thing about  her  newly  developed  power,  so  she 
threw  a  napkin  over  her  v^ork,  and  went  to  I  : 
her  minister  in.  She  distinctly  heard  a  spirit 
voice  say:  "there,  you  have  hidden  your  gift  un- 
der a  napkin."  Her  mediumship  that  moment 
left  her  and  though  she  has  carefully  sought  it 
with  tears,  it  has  never  returned.  "They  crucify 
to  themselves  the  Son  of  God  afresh."  This  is 
an  idiomatic  expression.  It  signifies  that  they 
have  sacrificed  a  divine  power.     Mediumship  is 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  49 

called  the  Son  of  God.  When  Jesus  was  baptized, 
and  when  he  saw  the  divine  power  descend  and 
light  upon  him,  as  doves  descend  and  light,  he 
heard  a  voice  say  to  him,  (the  multitude  did  not 
hear  it,)  "This  is  my  beloved  son  in  whom  I 
am  well  pleased."  Matt.  iii.  17.  That  is,  this 
power  which  you  now  see  and  feel  is  divine. 
That  this  is  an  idiomatic  expression  will  be  read- 
ily discerned  by  consulting  the  following  scrip- 
tures. Jno.  xvii.  12.  Acts  iv.  36.  2  Thes.  ii.  3. 
Mark  iii.  17. 

Though  this  subject  is  a  little  tedious,  I  feel  that 
I  cannot  leave  the  matter  without  giving  one  or 
two  more  references  to  the  Bible.  In  I  Jno.  ii. 
14,  the  writer  says: 

**I  have  written  to  you  fathers  because  ye  have 
known  him  that  was  from  the  beginning.  I  have 
written  to  you  young  men,  because  ye  are  strong,  and 
the  word  of  God  abideth  in  you,  and  ye  have  overcome 
■the  wicked  one." 

Instead  of  "wicked  one,"  the  Revised  Version 
reads  "ye  have  overcome  evil."  These  young 
men  were  mediums,  and  he  writes  to  them  be- 
cause they  were  inspired.  Their  mediumship 
abides  or  remains  with  them,  or  as  the  text  reads, 
in  them.    In  Acts  xvii.  11,  the  writer  says: 

**These  were  more  noble  than  those  in  Thessalonaca, 
in  that  they  received  the  word  with  all  readiness,  and 
searched  the  scriptures  daily  whether  these  things  were 
so." 

Here  they  were  comparing  the  word  with  the 
scripture  in  order  to  find  out  whether  the  mes- 
sage received  through  the  word  would  correspond 
with  scripture. 


50     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

The  subject  of  the  Word,  in  its  various  connec- 
tions is  very  important;  it  is  one  on  which  the 
whole  world  has  gone  wrong.  This  is  one  of  the 
reasons  why  I  prefer  to  be  more  thorough  in  its 
discussion  than  I  otherwise  would. 

The  next  text  to  which  I  will  refer  is  in  Rev. 
i.  2  and  reads  as  follows: 

"Who  bear  record  of  the  word  of  God,  and  of  the 
the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  all  things  which 
he  saw." 

John  could  not  bear  record  of  a  Bible,  but  he 
could  testify  to  Spirit  communion  with  himself, 
a-nd  to  his  having  witnessed  the  mediumship  of 
others.  Verse  9,  of  this  chapter  says: 

"I  John,  who  also  am  j-our  brother,  and  companion 
in  tribulation,  and  in  the  kingdom  and  patience  of. 
Jesus  Christ,  was  in  the  isle  that  is  called  Patmos,  for 
the  word  of  God,  and  for  the  testimony  of  Jesus 
Christ." 

John  was  not  banished  to  this  dreary  island 
for  having  a  Bible  in  his  possession,  but  for  his 
tnediumship.  He  here  connects  the  Word  of  God 
with  the  testimony  of  Jesus.  Revelations  xix.  10, 
plainly  tells  us  that  *'the  testimony  of  Jesus  is 
the  spirit  of  prophecy." 

In  II  Tim.  ii.  9  the  writer  who  has  been  suppos- 
<ed  to  be  Paul,  says  he  suffers  "trouble  as  an  evil 
doer  even  unto  bonds;  but  the  word  of  God  is 
tiot  bound."  That  is;  even  though  the  apostle 
was  in  chains  his  inspiration  was  not  bound. 
At  the  time  Paul  was  a  prisoner  in  Rome  he  was 
allowed  to  live  in  his  own  hired  house,  and  he 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  51 

received    and    preached  to  all  who  came  to  see 
him.    See  Acts  xxviii.  23,  31. 

The  term  "Word  of  God,"  occurs  in  manj^ 
other  places,  but  I.  wHll  not  give  more  at  present. 
In  Num.  xxii.  18-20,  wall  be  found  theterm  ''words 
of  the  Lord,  my  God."    The  text  reads  as  follows: 

And  Balaam  answered  and  said  unto  the  servants 
of  Balak,  if  Balak  would  give  me  his  house  full  of  silver 
and  gold,  I  cannot  go  bej^ond  the  word  of  the  Lord 
my  God,  to  do  less  or  more.  Now  therefore  I  pray 
you,  tarry  ye  also  here  this  night,  that  I  may  know 
what  the  Lord  will  say  unto  me  more.  And  God 
came  unto  Balaam  at  night  and  said  unto  him,  if  the 
men  come  to  call  thee,  rise  up,  and  go  vv'ith  them; 
But  the  word  which  I  shall  saj^  unto  thee,  that  thou 
Shalt  do." 

This  can  never  be  explained  on  an^"  other  prin- 
ciple than  mediumship.  Balaam  was  both  a 
a  clairvoyant  and  a  trance  medium.  Num.  xxii. 
31,  and  xxiv.  4,  15,  16.  Num.  xxiv.  4,  contains 
the  term,  *'the  words  of  God."  This  term  is  ap- 
plied to  words  wdiich  Balaam  heard  while  he  was 
entranced.  Verse  16,  shows  that  in  a  vision  Ba- 
laam heard  the  words  of  God. 

Let  us  next  consider 

The  Word  of  the  Lord. 

In  Gen.  xv.  1,  5,  the  Word  of  the  Lord  comes 
to  Abraham  in  a  vision.  Abraham  was  about 
to  wnll  his  property  to  one  of  his  servants,  but 
the  Word  of  the  Lord  informed  him  that  he 
would  have  an  heir— one  of  his  own  flesh— to 
hold  on  about  that  will. 

I  have  aready  referred  to  Balaam's  medium- 


52        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

ship,  as  brought  out  in  the  twenty- second, 
twent3^-third  and  t\vent3'-faurth  chapters  of  Num- 
bers.    In  Num.  xxiii,  5,  the  record  sa\'s: 

*'And  the  Lord  put  a  word  in  Balaam's  mouth,  and 
said,  return  unto  Balak,  and  thus  shalt  thou  speak." 

Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  this;  the  Word  of 
the  Lord,  is  the  word  put  by  a  power  we  now 
call  spirit  power  into  a  medium's  mouth. 

In  Ezekiel  xxxiii.  30,  31,  is  found  the  history 
of  a  hj^pocritical  people  who  call  for  the  Word 
of  the  Lord,  and  invite  people  to  go  and  hear 
the  Word  of  the  Lord,  and  then  they  go  and 
sit  before  Ezekiel  as  people  sit  before  mediums 
toda3^,  to  get  the  Word  of  the  Lord.  In  talking 
to  Ezekiel  about  these  people,  the  influence  says 
to  him: 

*'And  lo,  thou  art  unto  them  as  a  very  lovely  song 
of  one  that  hath  a  pleasant  voiee,  and  ean  play  wcJI 
on  an  instrument;  for  they  hear  thy  words  but  they 
do  them  not.  And  when  this  cometh  to  pass,  (lo,  it 
shall  come,)  then  they  shall  know  that  a  prophet  hath 
been  among  them." 

In  I  Samuel  iii.  the  evidence  is  so  strong  that 
I  must  present  it.  Verse  1  says: 

"And  the  child  Samuel  ministered  unto  the  Lord  be- 
fore Eli.  And  the  word  of  the  Lord  was  precious  in 
those  days;  there  was  no  open  vision." 

Here,  the  Word  of  the  Lord  can  be  nothing 
else  than  an  open  vision.  When  the  Word  of  the 
Lord  came  to  Balaam,  it  will  be  remembered 
that  his  vision  v^as  opened.  See  Num.  xxii.  31. 
When  Hagar  became  clairvoyant  it  was  said  her 
eyes  were  opened.  Gen.  xxi  17-19.  Now  turn 
back  to  I  Sam.  iii.  f,  and  read: 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  53 

"Now  Samuel  did  uot  yet  know  the  Lord,  neither 
was  the  word  of  the  Lord  yet  revealed  to  him." 

Here  the  Word  of  the  Lord  was  a  direct  reve- 
lation to  be  made  to  SamueL  Verses  16-21  set- 
tles the  matter  beyond  controversy.  They  read 
as  follows: 

"Then  Eli  called  Samuel  and  said,  Samuel,  my  son. 
And  he  answered,  here  am  I.  And  he  said,  what  is  the 
thing  that  the  Lord  hath  said  unto  thee?  I  pray  thee 
hide  it  not  from  me;  God  do  so  to  thee,  and  more  also, 
if  thou  hide  anj^thing  from  me  of  all  the  things  that 
he  hath  said  unto  thee.  And  Samuel  told  him  every 
whit,  and  hid  nothing  from  him.  And  he  said,  it  is  the 
Lord;  let  him  do  what  seemeth  to  him  good,  and  Samuel 
grew  and  the  Lord  was  with  him,  and  did  let  none  of 
his  words  fall  to  the  ground.  And  all  Israel  from  Dan 
even  unto  Beer-sheba  knew  that  Samuel  was  estab- 
lished to  be  a  prophet  of  the  Lord.  And  the  Lord  ap- 
peared again  in  Shiloh;  for  the  Lord  revealed  himself 
to  Samuel  in  Shiloh  by  the  word  of  the  Lord." 

Now  please  turn  to  I  Kin.  xiii.  and  read  the 
whole  chapter.  There,  a  "Man  _of  God,"  (Man 
of  God,  in  the  Bible  always  means  a  medium, 
except  in  Judges  xiii  where  it  means  an  angel.) 
came  to  Judah,  to  the  Altar  of  Bethel,  with  the 
Word  of  the  Lord.  He  is  fifteen  times  called  a 
"Man  of  God;"  and  his  message  is  eight  times 
called  "The  Word  of  the  Lord."  In  I  Kin.  xviii. 
31,  it  is  said  that: 

"Elijah  took  twelve  stones,  according  to  the  num- 
ber of  the  tribes  of  the  sons  of  Jacob,  unto  whom  the 
word  of  the  Lord  came,  saying  Israel  shall  be  thy 
name." 

Here,  it  is  said,  the  Word  of  the  Lord  came  to 
Jacob,  saying  Israel  shall  be  thy  name.     If  the 


54        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

reader  will  turn  to  Genesis  xxxii.  24-30,  he  will 
read  the  history  of  that  night's  seance.  Where 
*^the  Word  of  the  Lord"  told  Jacob  that,  hence- 
forth his  name  should  be  Israel.  It  was  a  man 
that  gave  to  Jacob,  this  ''Word  of  the  Lord." 
See  verse  24.  As  all  spirits  who  communicate, 
or  produce  any  phj'sical  phenomena  were  called 
gods,  Jacob  called  this  man  a  God.  See  Verse 
30.  Twice  visitors  from  the  other  world  came 
to  Jacob  and  changed  his  name.  See  Gen.  xxxv. 
1-10.  These  messages  Elijah  called  "the  Word 
of  the  Lord." 

This  brings  me  to  notice  a  prophecy  made  by 
the  medium,  Amos.  In  chapter  viii.  11,  12,  of 
that  book  the  prophet  ssijs: 

^'Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord  God,  that  I 
will  send  a  famine  in  the  laud,  not  a  famine  of  bread, 
nor  a  thirst  for  water,  but  of  hearing  the  words  of 
the  Lord;  and  they  shall  wander  from  sea  to  sea,  and 
from  the  north  even  to  the  east,  they  shall  run  to  and 
fro  to  seek  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  shall  not  find 
it." 

This  is  not  a  famine  for  Bibles,  but  for  the 
Word  of  the  Lord.  In  fact,  I  think  there  is  gen- 
erally less  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord  among  Bible 
people  than  among  others.  Those  ^lo  think 
they  believe  the  Bible,  generally  depend  more  on 
that,  and  less  on  inspiration,  or  direct  reve- 
lation than-  others.  It  was  thus  with  the  Jews; 
it  is  so  of  Christians.    Jesus  says  to  the  Jews: 

•'And  ye  have  not  his  word  abiding  in  you;  for 
whom  he  hath  sent,  him  ye  believe  not.  Search  the 
scriptures;  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eternal  life; 
and  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me."    Jno.  v.  39,  40. 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  55 

Here  the  Jews  continuously  search  the  scrip- 
ures.  Remember,  I  proved  that  Jesus  did  not 
command  them  to  search  the  scriptures;  but  if 
we  had  the  text  correctl\'  translated,  as  it  is  in 
the  Douay  Bible,  and  the  Revised  Version  it 
would  read:  ''Ye  do  search  the  scriptures,  because 
in  them  ye  think  je  have  eternal  life."  Here  they 
have  the  scriptures  and  search  them  too,  but 
they  have  not  his  word  abiding  in  them.  The 
scriptures  are  surely  some  thing  different  from  his 
word. 

It  might  be  well  in  this  connection  to  read 
Acts  xvii.  11-13.    This  writer  says: 

"These  were  more  noble  than  those  of  Thessalonica,. 
in  that  they  received  the  word  with  all  readiness  of 
mind,  and  searched  the  scriptures  daily  whether  these 
things  were  so.  Therefore  many  of  them  believed; 
also  of  honorable  women  not  a  few.  But  when  the 
Jews  of  Thessalonica  had  knowledge  that  the  word  of 
God  was  preached  of  Paul  at  Berea  they  came  thither 
also,  and  stirred  up  much  people." 

Here  they  received  the  w^ord  'with  readiness, 
and  then  compared  the  word  ^th  the  scriptures. 
This  was  done  to  find  out  whether  the  message, 
or  word,  as  it  came  through  Paul  and  Silas 
would  harmonize  with  the  scriptures.  Paul  w^as 
a  trance  medium;  and  either  he  or  Silas  was  a 
wonderful  physical  medium.  Acts  xxii.  17.  also 
xvi.  25-27. 

The  book  of  Jeremiah  has  so  much  on  this 
question,  that  I  will  not  present  half  of  it.  In 
fact  the  trouble  with  this  question  is  that  there 
is   such  a  super-abundance    of  evidence   that  it 


56        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

would  be  irksome  to  both  writer  and  reader  to 
present  it  all.  In  Jer.  xvii.  15,  16,  the  prophet 
saj^s: 

**Behol<l,  they  say  unto  me,  where  is  tbe  word  of 
the  Lord?  let  it  come  now.  As  for  me,  I  have  not 
.astened  from  being  a  pastor  to  follow  thee;  neither 
have  I  desired  the  woeful  day;  thou  knowest  that 
which  came  out  of  mv  lips  was  right  before  thee." 

The  Word  of  the  Lord  was  something  which 
came  through  the  lips  of  the  prophet,  so  they 
-auntingly  said;  *'let  it  come  now."  Jeremiah 
complains  that  the  people  turned  from  him— that 
they  had  forsaken  the  Lord— the  fountain  of  liv- 
ing -waters,  j^et  he  declares  that  which  came  out 
of  his  lips  was  right. 

In  Jer.  xxiii.  3,  the  prophet  says:  "From  the 
thirteenth  year  of  Josiah  king  of  Judah,  even  to 
the  third  and  twentieth  year,  the  Word  of  the 
Lord  had  come  to  him,  and  he  had  spoken  it  to 
the  people,  but  they  had  not  hearkened  to  it.'* 
This  Word  of  the  Lord  was  something  which 
came  to  the  prophet,  getting  him  up  early  in  the 
morning  and  sending  him  to  speak  to  the  people. 
Jeremiah  denies  that  those  prophets  who  talked 
differently  from  what  he  did,  had  the  Word  of 
the  Lord  So  Elijah  had  denied  that  the  proph- 
ets who  served  Baal  were  true  prophets.  In 
chapter  xxvii.  18,  Jeremiah  says: 

"But  if  they  be  prophets,  and  if  the  word  of  the 
Lord  be  with  them,  let  them  now  make  intercession 
to  the  Lord  of  hosts,  that  the  vessels  which  are  left  in 
the  house  of  the  king  of  Judah,  and  at  Jerusalem,  go 
not  to  Bablyon." 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  57 

All  prophets  were  tested  more  or  less  by  the 
answers  to  their  praj-ers.  When  Abimelech  had 
taken  Abraham's  wife,  the  angel  is  represent- 
ed as  saying  to  him: 

"Now  therefore  restore  to  the  man  his  wife;  for  he 
is  a  prophet,  and  he  shall  pray  for  thee  and  thou 
shalt  live;  and  if  thou  restore  her  not  thou  shalt  die, 
thou  and  all  that  are  thine." 

The  prayers  of  Samuel,  the  medium,  were  sup- 
posed to  have  saved  Israel  from  tlie  Philistines. 
See  I  Sam.  vii.  5,  7,  10,  11.  Naaman  the  leper, 
thought  the  onh^  wa\'  mediums  ever  healed  the 
sick  was  b3^  making  passes  over  them  and  call- 
ing upon  the  God,  or  guide  of  the  medium.  When 
Elisha  gave  him  a  different  prescription  he 
thought  Elisha  was  imposing  on  him.  See  II 
King  V.  11.  Let  us  return  to  the  W^ord  of  the 
Lord.    In  I  Thess.  iv.  15,  the  writer  sa3's: 

"For  we  saj^  unto  you  b3'  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
that  we  which  are  alive  and  remain  unto  the  coming 
of  the  Lord  shall  not  pervent  them  which  are  asleep." 

The  meaning  of  this  is,  "this  I  sa^-  b^'  inspira- 
tion," or,  "this  I  am  impressed  to  sslj.^^ 

In  Jer.  xxxvi.  4-6,  is  something  which  throws 
much  light  on  this  question.    It  reads  as  follows: 

"Then^  Jeremiah  called  Baruch  the  son  of  Neriah; 
and  Baruch  wrote  from  the  mouth  of  Jeremiah  all  the 
words  of  the  Lord,  which  he  had  spoken  unto  him, 
upon  a  roll  of  a  book.  And  Jeremiah  commanded 
Baruch,  sa\'ing  I  am  shut  up,  I  cannot  go  into  the 
house  of  the  Lord;  therefore  go  thou  and  read  in  the 
roll,  which  thou  hast  written  from  m3'  mouth,  the 
words  of  the  Lord,  in  the  ears  of  the  people  in  the 
Lord's    house  upon  the   fasting    day;    and    also    thou 


58         THE  BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

shalt  read  them  in  the  ears  of  all  Judah  that  come  out 
of  their  cities." 

Here  the  Words  of  the  Lord  were  spoken  by 
Jeremiah's  mouth  and  written  by  Banich.  Sev- 
eral times  in  this  and  the  following  chapters  it 
speaks  of  Jeremiah's  mouth  speaking  the  words, 
but  never  of  the  words  as  being  those  of  Jere- 
miah. When  Baruch  was  asked  how  the  mes- 
sage came,  he  said:  *'He  pronounced  all  these 
words  to  me  vrith  his  mouth,  and  I  wrote  them 
with  ink  in  a  book."  Verse  17.  The  king  had 
this  ''Word  of  the  Lord"  burned,  but  verse  32 
says: 

"Then  took  Jeremiah  another  roll,  and  gave  it  to 
Baruch  the  scribe,  the  son  of  Neriah;  who  wrote  there- 
in from  the  mouth  of  Jeremiah  all  the  words  of  the 
book  which  Jehoiachim  king  of  Judah  had  burned  in 
the  fire;  and  there  were  added  besides  unto  them  many 
like  words." 

The  next  chapter  in  verse  2,  again  calls  this 
message  the  Word  of  the  Lord.  In  this  same 
chapter,  that  is  in  chapter  xxxvii.  17,  the  king 
wishes  a  sitting  with  Jeremiah.  He  had 
Jeremiah  brought  out  of  prison  for  the  purpose 
of  getting  a  communication  through  his  medium- 
ship.    The  record  says: 

"Then  Zedekiah  the  -.king  sent  and  took  him  out; 
and  the  king  asked  him  secretly  in  his  house,  and 
said:  Is  there  any  word  from  the  Lord?  And  Jer- 
emiah said,  there  is;  for,  said  he  thou  shalt  be  deliv- 
ered into  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Babylon." 

Here  a  spirit  message  is  called  a  Word  from 
the  Lord.  Jesus  prophesied  concerning  Peter. 
Matt.    XX vi.    34,  this   prediction   is   called    ''the 


"       THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  59 

word  of  the  Lord."  Luke  xxii.  61.  In  Acts  xi. 
15,  Peter  again  calls  Jesus'  words  "the  word  of 
the  Lord." 

*'His  word,"  '*my  word,"  and  other  similar 
phrases,  occur  in  numerous  places  in  the  Bible. 
I  will  submit  and  briefly  comment  on  a  few  of 
them. 

In  II  Sam.  xxiii.  1-3,  are  the  last  words  of 
David.  Here  he  speaks  of  the  way  his  Psalms 
were  given,  and  says:  "the  spirit  of  the  Lord 
spoke  by  me,  and  his  word  was  on  my  tongue." 
He  adds:  "The  God  of  Israel  said,  the  rock  of 
Israel  spake  to  me,  he  that  ruleth  over  Israel 
must  be  just,  ruling  in  the  fear  of  God." 

In  Deut.  XXX.  14,  Moses  is  represented  as  say- 
ing, "But  the  word  is  very  nigh  thee,  in  thy 
mouth,  and  in  thy  heart,  that  thou  maj^est  do 
it."  The  meaning  of  this  I  understand  to  be, 
they  w^ould  be  inspired  to  do  the  right  thing. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  the  inspired  Elihu 
said:  "There  is  a  spirit  in  man  and  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Almighty  giveth  them  understanding." 
Job  xxxii.  8. 

In  Jer.  xxiii.  28-30  we  read: 

"The  prophet  that  hath  a  dream  let  him  tell  a 
dream;  and  he  that  hath  m^-  word,  let  him  speak 
my  word  faithfully'.  What  is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat? 
saith  the  Lord.  Is  not  my  word  like  as  a  fire?  saith 
the  Lord;  and  like  a  hammer  that  breaketh  in  pieces? 
Therefore  I  am  against  the  prophets,  saith  the  Lord, 
that  steal  my  words  every  one  from  his  neighbor." 

I  know  pretended  mediums  who  copj^  from 
each  other.    I  have  received  the  same  test  almost 


60        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

verbatim  from  five  different  mediums  in  five  dif- 
ferent states.  I  know  the  first  one  got  the  test 
from  a  mundane  source,  and  that  others  got  it 
from  her.  That  is  what  is  here  called  '^stealing 
my  words  every  one  from  his  neighbor." 

In  Jer.  v.  13,  14,  the  prophet  says: 

"And  the  prophet  shall  become  wind,  and  the  word 
is  not  in  them;  Thus  shall  it  be  done  unto  them. 
Wherefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  because  ye 
speak  this  word,  behold,  1  will  make  mv  words  in  thy 
mouth  fire,  and  this  people  wood,  and  it  shall  devour 
them." 

Here  the  prophet  is  speaking  of  false  prophets 
when  he  sa\^s:  "my  ^vord  is  not  in  them.'^ 
Then  in  speaking  of  his  word  through  Jeremiah^ 
he  threatens  to  make  them  bum  like  fire.  In 
Jer.  xviii.  18,  it  will  be  found  that  the  message 
that  comes  from  the  prophet  is  called  the  word. 
In  xliv.  16-19,  the  people  refused  the  word  from 
Jeremiah,  expressing  a  decided  preference  for  "the 
Queen  of  heaven,"  over  Yahweh  and  his  prophets. 

In  Luke  iv.  36,  Jesus'  mediumship  was  called 
"a  v^ord."    The  text  says: 

"And  they  were  all  amazed,  and  spake  among  them- 
selves, saying,  what  a  word  is  this  I  lor  with  authority 
and  power  he  commandeth  the  unclean  spirits,  and 
they  come  out." 

In  Luke  vii.  7,  the  Centurion  says: 

"Wherefore  neither  thought  I  myself  worthy  to  come 
unto  thee;  but  say  in  a  word,  and  my  servant  shall 
be  healed." 

There  is  no  power  in  a  word;  what  was 
meant  here  is,  say  under  influence,  or  with  the 
power  of  your  mediumship  to  back  you,  and  my 


THE  WOKD   OF  GOD.  6l 

servant  shall  be  healed.  He  simply  meant  to 
say,  your  "mediumship  can  do  it  without  your 
entering  my  house."  In  Luke  xxiv.  19,  Jesus' 
mediumship  was  called,  ''deed  and  word.'*  In 
Rom.  viii.  10,  Paul  says: 

"But  what  saith  it?  the  word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in 
thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart;  that  is  the  word  of 
faith  which  we  preach.'* 

Here  Paul  is  quoting  from  Moses  the  text 
quoted  above.  This  word  is  not  in  Bibles,  but 
in  the  mouths  and  hearts  of  the  people.  This  re- 
minds one  of  a  prophecy  in  Jer.  xxxi.  31-35,  which 
is  quoted  and  commented  on  in  Heb.  viii.  8-12. 

I  quote  only  a  part  of  Jeremiah's  prediction, 
beginning  with  verse  33,  and  ending  with  verse  35. 

"But  this  shall  be  the  covenant  that  I  will  make 
with  the  house  of  Israel;  after  those  days,  saith  the 
Lord,  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts  and 
write  it  in  their  hearts;  and  I  will  be  their  God,  and 
they  shall  be  my  people.  And  they  shall  teach  no 
more  every  man  his  neighbor,  and  erery  man  his 
brother,  saying,  know  ye  the  Lord;  for  they  shall  all 
know  me,  from  the  least  of  them  unto  the  greatest  of 
them  saith  the  Lord;  for  I  will  forgive  their  iniquity, 
and  I  will  remember  their  sin  no  more." 

Here,  the  law  was  to  be  written  in  their  in- 
ward parts.  What  can  that  be  if  not  inspira- 
tion? "And  they  shall  teach  no  more  every  man 
his  neighbor,  and  every  man  his  brother— all 
shall  know  me,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest  of 
them."  Isaiah  says:  "They  shall  all  be  taught 
of  the  Lord."  Is.  liv.  13.  Jesus  quotes  this  in 
Jno.  vi.  45.    Mark  xvi.  20,  says. 


62         THE   BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

"And  they  went  forth,  and  preached  every  where, 
the  Lord  working  w^ith  them,  and  confirming  the  word 
with  signs  following." 

The  Emphatic  Diaglott  rendered  this  text  thus: 
"And   those   having  .gone   forth,    proclaimed    every 

where,  the  Lord  co-opera.ting  and  ratifying  the  word 

through  the  accompanying  signs." 

Here  the  Lord  confirmed  the  word,  that  is, 
the  mediumship,  with  manifestations;  or  as  the 
other  version  reads:  **the  Lord  co-operating  and 
ratifying  the  words  with  accompanying  signs." 

In  Acts  X.  36-40,  Peter  in  his  sermon  at  the 
house  of  Cornelius,  says: 

The  word  which  God  sent  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
preaching  peace  by  Jesus  Christ,  (he  is  Lord  of  all;) 
That  word,  I  say,  ye  know,  which  was  published 
throughout  all  Judea,  and  began  from  Galilee,  after 
the  Baptism  which  John  preached;  how  God  anointed 
(Greek,  Christened, .  or  Christed)  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power;  who  went 
about  doing  good  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed 
with  the  devil;  for  God  was  with  him." 

In  this  instance  it  ^vvill  be  observed  that  there 
was  a  word,  or  a  mediumship  sent  to  Israeh 
This  -word  or  mediumship  was  a  word  which 
anointed,  or  made  a  Christ  of  Jesus  of  Nazar- 
eth. This  anointing  was  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
or  consecrated  spirit,  and  w^ith  powers  which 
enabled  him  to  go  about  doing  good,  and  heal- 
ing all  that  -were  oppressed  with  the  devil.  It 
was  a  mediumship  that  was  here  called  the  an- 
ointing,   or   rather   the   anointed.        This  same 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  63 

anointing  occurs  in  I  John  ii.  27.  The  text 
as  it  stands  reads  as  follows: 

"But  the  anointing  which  ye  have  received  of  him 
abideth  i»  you,  and  ye  need  not  that  any  man  teach 
you;  but  as  the  same  anointing  teacheth  you  all  things, 
and  is  truth  and  is  no  lie,  and  even  as  it  hath  taught 
you  ye  shall  abide  in  him." 

Now  please  read  this  text  again,  and  substitute 
the  word  mediumship  for  the  word  anointing 
and  note  how  sensible  it  sounds?  Mediumship 
is  a  teacher,  and  will  continue  to  teach  if  the 
one  who  possesses  it  will  only  continue  w4th  it. 

In  I  Cor.  xii.  7-11,  the  matter  is  stated  so  plain- 
ly that  it  seems  impossible  that  any  one  should 
misunderstand  it.    It  say^s: 

"But  the  manifestation  of  the  spirit  is  given  to  every 
man  to  profit  withal.  For  to  one  is  given  by  the 
spirit  the  word  of  wisdom;  to  another  the  word  of 
knowledge,  by  the  same  spirit;  to  another  faith  by  the 
same  spirit;  to  another  the  working  of  miracles;  to 
another  prophecy;  to  another  the  discerning  of  spir- 
its; to  another  divers  kind  of  tongues;  to  another  the 
interpretation  of  tongues;  but  all  these  worketh  that 
one  and  selfsame  spirit,  dividing  to  every  man  several- 
ly as  he  will." 

Here,  **the  word  of  wisdom,"  and  "the  w^ord 
of  knowledge,"  are  both  classed  w4th  all  other 
spiritual  gifts. 

In  I  Kin.  xvi.  12,  we  read: 

"Thus  did  Zimri  destroy  all  the  house  of  Baasha, 
according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  he  spake 
against  Baasha  by  Jehu  the  prophet." 

In  verse  one  the  Word  of  the  Lord  came  to 
Jehu,  the  medium,  and  told  him  what  to  say;  in 


64         THE   BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

verse  12  this  ''Word  of  the  Lord*'  was  fulfilled. 
Verse  34,  of  this  chapter  says: 

*'Inhis  days  did  Hiel,  the  Beth-elite  build  Jerico;  He 
laid  the  foundation  thereof  in  Abiram,  his  firstborn 
and  set  up  the  gates  thereof  in  his  youngest  son  Se- 
gub,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  he 
spake  by  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun. 

Joshua,  who  spoke  the  Word  of  the  Lord,  was 
a  medium.  Deut.  xxxiv.  9.  Josh.  i.  5.  In  Josh. 
vi.  26,  he,  under  influence,  made  the  prediction 
which,  in  the  above  quotation  is  called  ''the 
word  of  the  Lord." 

In  I  Kin.  xvii.  1,  2  and  3,  the  Word  of  the 
Lord  came  to  Elijah,  the  prophet.  In  verse  5, 
the  Word  of  the  Lord  told  Elijah  where  to  take 
up  his  residence.  In  verse  8,  the  Word  of  the 
Lord  came  to  him  again.  Verse  16,  shows  that 
this  Word  of  the  Lord,  w^as  fulfilled.  Verse  24 
reads  as  follows: 

"And  the  woman  said  to  Elijah,  now  by  this  I  know 
that  thou  art  a  man  of  God,  and  that  the  word  of 
the  Lord  in  thy  mouth  is  truth." 

*'Man  of  God,"  I  have  before  shown  means 
medium.  In  verse  18,  Elijah  is  called  "A  man  of 
God."  In  verse  24,  after  he  raises  the  woman's 
child  from  supposed  death,  she  knows  that  he  is 
a  man  of  God,  and  that  the  Word  of  the  Lord 
in  his  mouth  is  the  truth.  In  other  words,  that 
his  mediumship  is  true. 

In  II  Kin.  i.  Ahaziah  was  sick  and  he  Tvent  to  a 
medium  and  spirit;  but  it  seems  he  v^ent  to  the 
wrong  medium,  and  the  wrong  spirit.  The  spirit 
of  whom  he  inquired  \sras  Baal-zebub.      An  influ- 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  65 

ence  came  to  Elijah  and  told  him  that  for  that 
offense  he  should  die.  Verse  17  says:  **so  he  died 
according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  which  Elijah 
had  spoken."  In  II  Kin.  iv.  42-44,  a  man  of 
God  again  comes  along  and  speaks  the  Word 
of  the  Lord.  In  the  seventh  chapter  of  II  Kin., 
Samaria  was  besieged  by  the  Syrians;  the  city 
was  out  of  provisions  and  their  water  supply 
cut  off.  Elisha,  the  medium,  w^as  appealed  to 
for  help.  He  proceeded  in  verse  one,  by  sa34ng: 
**Hear  ye  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  and  tells  them 
that  within  twenty-four  hours,  provisions  w^ould 
be  very  cheap  in  the  city.  Elisha  is  here  called 
**a  man  of  God."  See  verses  2,  17  and  19.  The 
record  shows  that  the  S^^rians,  who  were  besieg- 
ing the  city  took  fright  and  ran  awa^",  leaving 
all  of  their  provisions,  and  the  prophecy  was 
thus  fulfilled.     Verse  16  says: 

•'And  the  people  went  out  and  spoiled  the  tents  of 
the  S^'rians.  -So  a  measure  of  tine  flour  was  sold  for 
a  shekel,  and  two  measurs  of  barley  for  a  shekel,  ac- 
cording to  the  word  of  the  Lord." 

Verses  17-19  give  a  history  of  the  treading  to 
death  of  a  lord  in  the  gates,  ''as  the  man  of 
God  had  said." 

In  II  Kin.  ix.  26,  Elisha's  message  to  Jehoram 
is  called  the  Word  of  the  Lord.  In  xiv.  25,  a 
message  given  by  the  prophet  Isaiah  is  again 
called  "the  word  of  the  Lord." 

In  the  twenty-second  chapter  of  I  Kings  is  an 
interesting  piece  of  history.  There  it  is  found 
that  Ahab,  the  king  of  Israel,  and  Jehoshaphat, 


66       THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

the  king  of  Jtidah,  wanted  to  enter  into  an  alli- 
ance to  go  and  fight  against  Ramoth-gilead. 
They  sent  for  prophets  by  the  hundred  to  give 
them  spiritual  advice.  Verses  5  and  6  read  as 
follows: 

"And  Jehoshaphat  said  nnto  the  king  of  Israel,  in- 
quire I  pray  thee  at  the  word  of  the  Lord  today. 
Then  the  king  of  Israel  gathered  the  prophets  togeth- 
er, about  four  hundred  men,  and  said  unto  them^ 
shall  I  go  against  Ramoth-gilead  to  battle,  or  shall  I 
forbear?  And  they  said  go  up;  for  the  Lord  shall  de- 
liver it  into  the  hand  of  the  king." 

Here  four  hundred  mediums  tell  the  same  story; 
this  is  explained  by  the  law  of  suggestion.  Then 
Jehoshaphat,  the  king  of  Judah,  wanted  to  in- 
quire of  yet  one  more  of  Israel's  prophets.  Ac- 
cordingly they  sent  for  Michaiah.  In  verse  19, 
he  begins  his  prediction  with  a  *'hear  the  word 
of  the  Lord."  He  then  goes  on  to  tell  of  God's 
efforts  to  induce  Ahab,  by  Ij^ng  spirits,  to  go 
to  battle.  Verse  38  of  this  chapter  again  calls 
the  message  given  by  Elijah,  the  Word  of  the 
Lord. 

In  II  Chron.  xxxvi.  22,  23,  Jeremiah's  predic- 
tions are  called  the  ''the  word  of  the  Lord,  by 
the  mouth  of  Jeremiah."  In  II  Kin.  iii.  11,  12,  Je- 
hoshaphat sent  for  Elisha,  the  medium.  Verses- 
11,  12,  contain  the  following: 

But  Jehoshaphat  said,  is  there  not  here  a  prophet  of 
the  Lord,  that  we  may  inquire  of  the  Lord  by  him? 
and  one  of  the  king  of  Israel's  servants  answered  and 
said.  Here  is  Elisha,  the  son  of  Shaphat,  which  poured 
water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah.    And  Jehoshaphat  said^ 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  67 

the  word  of  the  Lord  is  with  him.  So  the  king  of  Is- 
rael, and  Jehoshaphat  and  the  king  of  Edom  went 
down  to  him." 

When  they  met,  Elisha  did  not  like  the  king 
of  Israel,  and  felt  inclined  not  to  give  him  any- 
thing; finallj^  he  said:  ''bring  me  a  minstrel," 
verse  15.  A  minstrel  was  brought  and  played 
and  ''the  hand  of  the  Lord  came  upon  Elisha" 
and  he  gave  a  communication. 

There  are  many  more  texts  which  should  be 
quoted  but  I  know  the  reader  is  tired  of  wading 
through  the  mass  of  evidence  that  the  Word  of 
God  is  not  the  Bible,  but  mediumship. 


CHAPTER  III. 

HIGHER  CRITICISM— WHAT  IT  IS. 

The  word  Criticism  Objectionable — Esoteric  Criticism — Criti- 
cism a  Newly  Discovered  Science — A  few  Authors  to  Con- 
sult—The Facts  Kept  from  the  People— Rev.  R.  Heber 
Newton  on  Criticism— Change  in  Church  Tactics  on 
the  Question — Rev.  Mr.  Cad  man  and  Rev.  Washington 
Gladden  on  Higher  Criticism — Mr.  Newton's  Further 
Remarks  on  the  Same — Andrew  D.  White  sets  forth  Old 
Opinions  of  the  Bible— Dean  Burgon  on  Inerrency  of 
Bible — Canon  McNeile  on  the  same — Extract  from  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith — Higher  Criticism  and 
Shakespeare's  Plays— The  After  Thought  which  made 
Jesus  a  God — Impossible  Miracles  attending  Jesus' Birth 
and  Death — Other  Gods  and  Revelations — No  part  of  the 
World  Abandoned  — Peter's  Lesson — Why  Every  Nation 
thgouht  Itself   Heaven's  Favorite — Bibles  not  Finalities. 

I  DO  NOT  quite  like  the  term  Criticism  as  ap- 
plied to  the  study  of  the  Bible,  although  it  is 
almost  universally  applied  to  the  later  researches 
concerning  it,  its  origin  and  its  contents;  the 
word  is  so  often  used  to  imply  something  cen- 
sorious or  fastidious  that  it  has  not  so  pleasant 
a  sound  as  such  words  as  investigation,  exami- 
nation, or  research,  but  as  the  word  has  gained 
a  place  in  esoteric  biblical  investigation  I  use  it. 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM— WHAT  IT  IS.  69 

The  reader  may  be  assured    that  I  use  it   in  no 
opprobrious  or  fault-finding  sense. 

The  term  ''Higher  Criticism"  means  strictlj^ 
Inside  Criticism;  or  a  criticism  of  the  Bible  from 
an  examination  of  its  own  contents.  Perhaps 
the  term  Esoteric  Criticism  would  be  more  read- 
ily and  more  generally  understood  than  Higher 
Criticism. 

Until  within  quite  a  recent  period  there  has 
really  been  nothing  in  the  world  which,  in  the 
stricter  sense  of  the  word  could  be  called  criti- 
cism or  investigation;  indeed  criticism  may  in 
a  certain  sense  be  called  a  newly  discovered  sci- 
ence. If  my  memory  is  not  at  fault  it  was  not 
until  about  the  year  1846  that  men  earnestly 
began  their  excavations  in  the  ruins  of  Eg3'pt, 
Ninevah,  Assyria  and  Babylon.  About  that 
time  they  began  to  unearth,  read  and  translate 
certain  books  indellibly  wa'itten  in  clay.  The 
existence  of  these  books  was  before  unknown. 
Certain  persons  have  so  educated  themselves 
that  they  read  and  translate  them  as  correctly 
and  infallibly  as  one  reads  and  interprets  a  letter 
from  a  friend.  Indeed  these  books  are,  in  a  cer- 
tain sense,  letters  from  an  otherwise  pre-historic 
age  to  those  who  today  are  interested  in  exam- 
ining **the  rock  out  of  which  we  were  hewn." 

These  books  have  afforded  newer  and  better 
explanations  of  the  Bible,  and  are  fast  driving 
those  who  denounce  the  Bible  as  the  work  of 
knavish  priests,  and  those  who  use  it  as  a  fet- 
ish— an  infallible  book  handed  down  from  heav- 
en—out of  the  field. 


70       THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM, 

This  outside  light  has  caused  critics  to  open 
the  Bible  anew,  and  they  have  learned  that  there 
is  an  Inside  criticism  which  is  even  stronger  than 
the  facts  discovered  in  the  old  books  so  long  ago 
written  in  cuneiform  letters  in  stone  and  clay. 

What  the  telescope  has  done  for  those  in  search 
of  light  from  other  worlds,  and  what  the  micro- 
scope has  done  in  the  investigation  of  bacteriol- 
ogy, that  the  Higher  Criticism  is  doing  in  the 
world  of  Biblical  exegesis. 

The  Higher  Criticism  is  that  criticism  which 
has  not  made  up  its  mind  in  advance,  but  which 
spends  its  time  and  energies  in  scanning  these 
old  writings  and  finding  out  from  the  writings 
the«nselves,  and  from  all  other  sources  all  that 
can  be  learned  concerning  their  origin. 

It  is  true  that  almost  anything  can  call  itself 
the  Higher  Criticism,  but  genuine  Higher  Crit- 
ics have  allowed  nothing  to  stand  between 
them  and  the  desire  to  find  the  truth.  If  the 
reader  v^ould  like  to  read  up  on  these  questions 
I  would  not  advise  him  to  immediately  read  the 
numerous  large  volumes  now  before  the  world 
on  the  subject.  Read  Rev.  Washington  Glad- 
den's  ''Who  Wrote  the  Bible?"  Rev.  R.  Heber 
Newton's  "Right  and  Wrong  Uses  of  the  Bible," 
Rev.  John  Chadwick's  ''The  Bible  of  Today,"  and 
Rev.  T.  J.  Sunderland's  "The  Bible;  its  Origin, 
Growth  and  Character."  These  together  with 
a  work  on  the  Canon,  by  Bronson  Wheeler, 
entitled  "A  Short  History  of  the  Bible,"  and 
Andrew  D.  White's  chapters  on  the  subject  in 
his  "Warfare  of  Science  with  Theology  in  Christ- 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM— WHAT  IT  IS.  71 

endom,"  together  with  the  articles  in  the  Ency- 
clopedia Britannica,  under  various  heads  will 
sufficiently  post  any  one  to  meet  the  opposition, 
from  whatever  source  it  may  come.  In  fact 
as  I  am  writing  this  on  the  wang,  as  I  journey 
from  one  campmeeting  to  another  and  as  I 
cannot  carry  a  library  with  me  I  shall  perhaps 
quote  from  only  the  above  authors. 

The  facts  given  are  startling,  j^et  as  Mr.  Glad- 
den sa^^s,  they  are  facts  known  by  but  few. 
His  words  are: 

"Nevertheless  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  results 
of  conserYative  scholarship  have  been  very  imperfectly 
reported  to  the  laity  of  the  churches.  Man3^  facts 
about  the  Bible  are  now  known  by  intelligent  minis- 
ters, of  which  their  congregations  do  not  hear.  An 
anxious  and  not  unnatural  feeling  has  prevailed  that 
the  faith  of  the  people  in  the  Bible  would  be  shaken 
if  the  facts  were  known." 

There  are  a  few  ministers  w^ho  are  excep- 
tions to  the  rule  given  above.  Rev.  R.  Heber 
Newton,  of  All  Souls  Episcopal  Church,  of  New 
York,  is  one.  In  his  work  entitled  "Right  and 
Wrong  Uses  of  the  Bible,"  he  sa3^s: 

"We  can  see  this  as  our  fathers  could  not  see  it  be- 
cause the  glasses  through  which  to  read  literature 
critically  have  been  ground  within  the  present  centur\\ 
Literary  criticism  is  the  stud^-  of  literature  by  means 
of  a  microscopic  view  of  the  language  in  which  the 
book  is  written,  of  its  growth  from  various  roots,  of 
its  stages  of  development  and  the  factors  influencing 
them,  of  its  condition  in  the  period  of  this  particular 
composition,  of  the  writer's  idios\'ncrasies  of  thought 
and  st3de  in  his  ripening  periods,  of  the  general  history 


72  THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

and  literature  of  his  race,  and  of  the  special  character- 
istics of  his  age,  and  of  his  contemporary  writers. 

"Every  educated  person  knows  something  of  the 
working  of  this  criticism  on  other  books.  You  have 
read  your  Shakespeare  with  intelligence,  and  have  had 
some  misgivings  as  to  the  genuineness  of  a  few  plays^ 
and  of  passages  in  many  plays.  The  brutalities  and 
beastliness  of  Titus  Andronicus  seemed  impossible  to 
the  author  of  'The  Tempest,'  and  'A  Midsummer 
Night's  Dream.'  The  Historic  plays  seemed  to  you 
often  padded.  But  there  was  nothing  more  than  guess- 
work in  your  conclusion,  and,  you  suspected,  in  the 
more  pretentious  opinions  of  others.  You  take  up, 
however,  the  lectures  of  Hudson  on  the  charming  study 
of  Dowden,  and  you  find  that  criticism  is  becoming 
not  merely  an  art,  depending  on  certain  tastes  and  in- 
stincts, building  slowly  a  well  settled  body  of  laws 
and  rules,  and  shaping  already  a  well  defined  consen- 
sus of  judgment.  The  growth  of  the  English  language 
and  literature,  the  characteristics  of  society,  of  lan- 
guage, and  of  literature  in  the  Elizabethan  Era,  the 
idioms  of  Shakespeare's  contemporaries,  the  manner 
of  Shakespeare  himself,  in  his  difierent  periods,  have 
all  been  so  minutely  studied  as  to  form  a  distinct 
specialty  in  knowledge.  The  Shakespearian  scholar  is 
a  well  differentiated  species  of  the  genus  scholar,  and 
speaks  with  a  substantial  authority  upon  what  is  now 
a  real  science.  You  can  follow  this  teacher  into 
Shakespeare's  workshop,  watch  the  building  of  his 
plaj's,  distinguish  the  hands  which  toiled  over  them 
and  mark  their  journeyman's  work  till  quite  sure  where 
the  master's  own  inimitable  touch  caressed  them  into 
noble  form  and  in  what  period  of  his  life  he  thus 
wrought. 

* 'There  is  another  revelation  of  Shakespeare  to  our 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM— WHAT  IT  IS  73 

In  the  present  immature  development  of  this 
stage  of  this  science  of  Biblical  criticism  there  are  of 
course,  plenty  of  speculations  and  guesses,  of  hasty 
generalizations  and  crude  opinions.  Time  will  correct 
these.  Meanwhile  there  is  already  so  much  that  may 
claim  to  be  well  established  as  to  constitute  a  new 
knowledge  of  these  old  books."  — Right  and  Wrong 
uses  of  the  Bible,    pp.  22—25. 

I  am  glad  to  know  that  the  Evangelical 
Churches  are  nowgeneralh^w^aking  up  to  the  ideas 
advocated  b)^  this  great  divine.  I  have  myself 
suffered  persecution  and  ostracism  for  making 
similar  statements.  The  trouble  was,  I  began 
them  too  early  and  in  the  midst  of  "darkness 
that  could  be  felt."  Bishop  Colenso  lost  his 
theological  head  for  such  utterances;  but  Dean 
Stanley  did  not,  nor  did  Rev.  R.  Heber  Newton. 
When  Dr.  Buckle3%  editor  of  the  New  York 
Christian  Advocate,  began  to  advance  these 
ideas  it  created  a  buzz  of  excitement  in  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  but  the  good  Dr.  retains 
his  position  as  editor  of  the  most  influential  and 
wddely  circulated  Methodist  new^spaper  in  the 
world. 

It  w^as,  I  believe,  on  fie  7th  day  of  March, 
1899,  that  Rev.  Dr.  S.  D.  Cadman,  a  noted 
Methodist  Divine,  followed  Dr.  Buckley's  exam- 
ple, and  at  a  meeting  of  the  Methodist  Minis- 
ters of  the  Greatest  City  on  the  Continent — a 
meeting  attended  by  over  four  hundred  ministers- 
delivered  a  discourse  on  the  evidences  that  the 
Bible  was  only  a  human  production.  All  this 
goes   to    show  that  even  Methodism  is  not  so 


74        THE   BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

stereotyped  that  it  cannot  grow.  A  few  senten- 
ces from  Rev.  Mr.  Cadman's  discourse,  as  report- 
ed in  the  daily  papers  must  suffice. 

"The  iiierrency  and  infalHbiUty  of  the  Bible  are  no 
longer  possible  of  belief  among  reasoning  men." 

"The  authorship  of  a  great  part  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  positively  unknown." 

"The  New  Testament  likewise  contains  many  con- 
tradictions." 

"The  true  source  of  inspiration  is  neither  a  book  nor 
a  church." 

The  Associated  Press  report  adds  that  *'Xhe 
speaker  denies  such  stories  as  Jonah  and  the 
Whale;  the  fate  of  Lot's  wife;  Elijah's  Ascension; 
the  age  of  Methuselah;  Daniel  in  the  Lion's  den; 
and  God  speaking  to  Moses  out  of  the  burning 
bush."  After  giving  a  resume''  of  Mr.  Cadman's 
discourse  the  Associated  Press  report  adds,  *'At 
the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Cadman's  paper,  the  four 
hundred  ministers  present,  including  Bishop  W. 
G.  Andrews,  applauded  him  and  entered  into  a 
forceful  discussion  of  his  propsoitions." 

I  may  be  permitted  to  add  here,  that  for  many 
years  the  most  able  and  fearless  of  the  clergy 
have  been  drifting  in  this  way.  Now  the  drift 
seems  to  come  in  the  shape  of  a  tidal  wave,  or 
a  cyclone.  Among  those  who  have  in  the  past, 
come  over,  one  b^^  one,  are  such  men  as  Rev.  Dr. 
Driver,  Rev.  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott,  who  has  re- 
cently resigned  his  place  in  the  pulpit,  so  long 
and  ably  filled  by  Rev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher; 
Rev.  Washington  Gladden,  the  most  able  Con- 
gregational Minister  of  Columbus,  Ohio;  Rev.  R. 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM— W HAT  IT  IS.  75 

Heber  Newton,  from  whom  I  have  quoted,  and 
ftom  whom  I  propose  to  quote  much  more;  Rev. 
Ptof.  Briggs,  late  of  Union  Theological  Seminary; 
Rev.  Preserved  Smith,  and  others. 

Among  those  who  have  lived  and  preached 
within  my  memor3^,  and  who  have  helped  to 
bring  out  the  Higher  Criticism,  were  Rev.  Dean 
Stanley,  Rev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  Rev. 
Phillips  Brooks,  Bishop  in  the  Episcopal  Church. 

In  further  answer  as  to  what  the  Higher  Crit- 
icism is,  I  will  quote  from  Ohio's  great  preacher, 
Rev.  Washington  Gladden.  On  pages  4  and  5 
of  his   ''Who  Wrote  the  Bible,"  he  says: 

"A  great  amount  of  study  has  been  expended  of  late 
on  the  scriptures,  and  the  conclusions  reached  by  this 
study  are  of  immense  importance.  What  is  called  The 
Higher  Criticism  has  been  busy  scanning  these  old 
writings,  and  trying  to  find  out  all  about  them. 
What  is  the  Higher  Criticism?  It  is  the  attempt  to 
learn  from  the  Scriptures  themselves,  the  truth  about 
their  origin.  It  consists  in  a  careful  studj"  of  the  books, 
of  the  manners  and  customs  referred  to  in  them,  of  the 
historical  facts  mentioned  b}-  them;  it  compares  part 
with  part,  and  book  with  book,  to  discover  agree- 
ments, if  they  exist,  and  discrepancies,  that  they  ma3' 
be  reconciled.  The  Higher  Criticism  has  subjected  these 
old  writings  to  such  an  analysis  and  inspection  as  no 
other  writings  have  ever  undergone.  Some  of  this 
work  has  undoubtedly  been  destructive.  *  *  *  But 
much  of  this  criticism  has  been  thoroughh^  candid  and 
reverent,  even  conservative  in  its  temper  and  purpose. 
It  has  not  been  unwilling  to  look  at  the  facts;  but  it 
has  held  toward  the  Bible  a  devout  and  sj^mpathetic 
attitude;  it  believes  it  to  contain,  as  no  other  book  in 


76        THE   BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

the  world  contains,  a  message  from  God  to  men;  and 
it  has  only  sought  to  learn  from  the  Bible  itself  how 
that  message  has  been  conveyed." 

Rev.  R.  Heber  Newton,  who  now  proclaims 
his  Spiritualism,  and  who  is  now  the  brightest 
light  in  the  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  said: 

''Bibliolatry,  the  worship  of  the  Bible,  is  responsible 
for  the  reasonable  reverence  these  sacred  writings  merit. 
This  reasonable  reverence  can  be  recovered  only  by 
putting  away  unreasonable  reverence.  We  must  exor- 
cise a  spirit  of  superstition  to  save  a  faith.  We  must 
part  with  the  unreal  Bible  if  w^e  would  hold  the  real. 
Iconoclasm  is  not  pleasant  to  any  but  the  callow 
youth.  It  may  be  none  the  less  needful;  and  then  the 
sober  man  must  not  shrink  from  shivering  the  most 
sacred  shrine.  As  runs  the  Hindoo  thought,  *the  des- 
troyer is  one  of  the  forms  of  the  Divine  power.'  God 
is  continually  destroying  worlds  and  creeds  alike;  but 
in  order  to  rebuild." 

This  is  a  great  and  good  confession,  and  I  am 
glad  this  great  preacher  has  the  intellect  to  see 
the  point,  as  he  does,  and  the  fearlessness  of 
results  to  confess  it  A  few  such  preachers 
would  greatly  narrow  the  gap  between  Christ- 
ianity, so-called,  and  that  which  the  world  calls 
Infidelity.    Mr.  Newton  continues: 

"There  is  danger  now  in  shaking  men's  faiths.  There 
is  danger  too  in  leaving  men's  faiths  unshaken — ^unless 
the  Divine  process  is  wrong.  In  the  stress  and  storm 
of  the  tossing  sea,  faith  may  go  down  in  the  waters. 
It  may  also  die  of  dry  rot  by  the  old  -wharves.  There 
is  danger  in  rash  utterance,  but  there  is  at  least,  equal 
danger  in  timid  silence.  The  time  never  comes  when 
reconstruction    does    not  imperil  some  great  interest. 


THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM — WHAT  IT  I<5.  77 

Nofjc  tijc  ic:!>s  the  recon  SI  ruction  must  go  on.  Delay 
in  pulling  down  may  make  building  up  the  old  struct- 
ure impossible. 

"As  the  story  of  past  civilizations  sadly  shows,  the 
gulf  between  popular  superstitions  and  the  thoughts 
of  scholars  may  widen  until  no  life  can  span  it,  and 
religion  perishes  in  it.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  time 
has  come  when  the  pulpit  must  keep  no  longer  silence. 
Its  silence  will  not  seal  the  lips  of  other  teachers. 
Books  and  papers  are  everywhere  forcing  the  issue  upon 
our  generation.  Men's  minds  are  torn  asunder,  their 
souls  are  in  the  strife."  ^-Right  and  Wrong  uses  of  the 
Bible, 

Preparatory  to  showing  the  new  views  of  the 
Bible,  I  wdll  make  a  few  quotations  to  show 
from  what  the  new  departs.  In  Andrew  D. 
White's  Second  Volume,  pages  307-308  I  find 
the  following  w4th  foot  notes  telling  where  he 
finds  his  authorities. 

''Eminent  Lutheran  divines  in  the  Seventeenth  Cen- 
tur3',  like  Gerhard,  Colovius,  Cocceius,  and  multitudes 
of  others,  wrote  scores  of  Quartos  to  further  this  sys- 
tem, and  other  branches  of  the  Protestant  Church  em- 
ulated their  example.  The  pregnant  dictum  of  St. 
Augustine — 'Greater  is  the  authority  of  scripture  than 
all  human  capacitj-' — was  steadily  insisted  upon,  and 
toward  the  close  of  the  Seventeenth  Century,  Yoctius, 
the  renowned  professor  of  Utrecht,  declared,  'Not  a 
word  is  contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  is  not 
in  the  strictest  sense  inspired,  the  very  punctuation 
not  expected,'  And  this  declaration  was  echoed  back 
from  multitudes  of  pulpits,  theological  chairs  and  coun- 
cils. *  *  *  To  increase  this  vast  confusion,  came,  in 
the    older    branch    of    the    Church,    the   idea    of  the 


78       THE   BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

divine  inspiration  of  the  Latin  translation  of  the 
Bible,  ascribed  to  St  Jerome— the  Vulgate.  It  was  in- 
sisted by  Catholic  authorities  that  this  was  as  com- 
pletely a  product  of  divine  inspiration  as  was  the 
Hebrew  original.  Strong  men  arose  to  insist  even 
that  where  the  Hebrew  and  the  Latin  differed  the 
Hebrew  should  be  altered  to  fit  Jerome's  mistransla- 
tion, as  the  latter,  having  been  made  under  the  new 
dispensation,  must  be  better  than  that  made  under  the 
old." 

On  page  369,  Mr.  White  quotes  and  comments 
as  follows: 

"In  1861  Dean  Burgon  preached  in  Christ  Church 
Cathedral  as  follows:  'No  sirs,  the  Bible  is  the  very 
utterance  of  the  eternal;  as  much  God's  word  as  if 
high  heaven  were  opened,  and  we  heard  God  speaking 
to  us  with  human  voice.  .  Every  book  is  inspired  alike 
and  is  inspired  entirel3^  Inspiration  is  not  a  difference 
of  degree,  but  of  kind.  The  Bible  is  filled  to  overflow- 
ing withthe  Holy  Spirit  of  God;  the  books  of  it,  and 
the  words  of  it  and  the  very  letters  of  it." 

*'In  1865  Canon  McNeile  declared  in  Exeter  Hall 
that  'we  must  either  receive  the  verbal  inspiration  of 
the  Old  Testament  or  deny  the  veracity,  the  insight, 
the  integrity,  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  a  teacher  of 
divine  truth." 

"As  late  as  1869  one  of  the  most  eloquent  pulpit 
orators  in  the  Church  of  England,  Canon  Liddon, 
preaching  at  St.  Paul's  Cathedral,  used  in  his  fervor 
the  same  dangerous  argument:  'That  the  authority  of 
Christ  himself  and  therefore  Christianity,  must  rest  on 
the  Old  View  of  the  Old  Testament;  that  since  the 
founder  of  Christianity,  in  divinely  recorded  utteran- 
ces, alluded  to  the  transformation  of  Lot's  wife  into 
a  pillar  of  salt,  to  Noah's  ark  and  the  flood,  and  to  the 


THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM— WHAT  IT  IS.  79 

sojourn  in  the  whale,  the  biblical  account  of  these 
must  be  accepted  as  historical  or  that  Christianity 
must  be  given  up  altogether." 

To  further  show  the  old  opinions  which  are 
now  rapidly  being  relegated  to  a  deserved  obliv- 
ion I  quote  the  following  from  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  once  adopted  by  all  Evan- 
gelical Churches.  A  want  of  space  compels  me 
to  greatly  abridge. 

"The  light  of  Nature  and  the  works  of  creation  and 
providence  *  *  *  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowl- 
edge of  God  and  of  His  will  which  is  necessary  to  sal- 
vation. ***  The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture  de- 
pendeth  wholly  upon  God,  the  author  thereof;  and 
therefore  is  to  be  received,  because  it  is  the  word  of 
God.  *  *  *  The  perfection  thereof  arc  arguments  wherebj' 
it  doth  abundanth^  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of 
God,  and  establish  our  persuasion  and  assurance  of 
the  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  thereof." 

"The  whole  counsel  of  God  concerning  all  things 
necessary  for  His  own  glory,  man's  salvation,  faith 
and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  scripture,  or 
by  good  and  necessary  consequences  may  be  deduced 
from  scripture,  utito  which  nothing  is  at  any  time  to 
be  added  by  new  revelations  of  the  spirit." 

"Being  immediately  inspired  by  God,  and  bj^  his 
singular  care  and  providence  kept  ivre  in  all  ages  *  * 
in  all  controversies  of  religion  the  church  is  finally  to 
appeal  to  them." 

Here,  the  light  of  nature  and  the  w^orks  of 
creation  are  not  sufficient,  so  it  seems  necessar)^, 
as  Rev.  Dr.  Newton  said,  "That  a  book  be  let 
down  out  of  the  skies,  immaculate,  infalli- 
ble, oracular."      Such  is  the  Bible,  ** which  doth 


80       THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of 
God,"  '* of  infallible  truth,  and  divine  authority." 
This  is  not  all  but  the  Bible  contains  ''the  whole 
counsel  of  God,"  —  ''all  things  necessary  for  his 
own  glory  —  man's  salvation."  It  is  all  "ex- 
pressly set  down  in  the  scriptures,"  and  "unto 
this  nothing  is  at  any  time  to  be  added  by  new 
revelations."  This  cuts  off  all  communications 
between  God  and  this  world  in  the  future.  This 
may  be  well  as  God  has  kept  the  Bible  "pure  in 
all  ages." 

Could  language  be  stronger  or  more  inconsist- 
ent than  this,  until  within  the  last  score  of 
years  endorsed  by  all  Christians,  and  now  en- 
dorsed by  nine-tenths  of  them?  It  amounts  to 
this:  God  once  upon  a  time  came  down  from 
heaven  and  gave  a  few  Jews  a  book — all  that 
man  needed,  or  ever  would  need.  God  had  de- 
termined to  never  speak  again,  or  allow  any 
one  else  to  speak  by  his  authority;  and  no 
knowledge  outside  of,  or  beyond  what  was  con- 
tained in  that  book  could  under  any  circumstan- 
ces be  tolerated.  The  "awful  state  of  human- 
ity," coming  as  a  result  of  an  effort  to  taste  the 
fruit  of  the  forbidden  tree  of  knowledge  has  ever 
been  held  before  the  world  as  a  solemn  warn- 
ing  against   seeking   knowledge  from  forbidden 


'C5 

sources. 


As  before  remarked,  this  doctrine  of  the  West- 
minster Confession  of  Faith,  was  once  the  doc- 
trine of  Universal  Christendom.  The  Higher 
Criticism  began  to  wash  the  sandy  foundation 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM— WHAT  IT  IS.  81 

from  tinder  the  church.  This  caused  some  of 
the  wiser  and  more  bold  Christians  to  see  that 
thej  were  carrying  a  load  "which  neither  they 
nor  their  fathers  were  able  to  bear." 

While  hundreds  of  pages  could  be  filled  with 
such  quotations  as  I  have  made,  I  could,  if  I 
were  so  disposed,  find  assertions  quite  as  extrav- 
agant made  by  the  people  whom  the  world  calls 
Infidels,  many  of  whom  supposed  that  the  Bible 
is  a  forgery  of  wicked  priests,  who,  perhaps  had 
no  other  motive  than  to  deceive  the  people  and 
get  their  money. 

The  Higher  Criticism  puts  all  sacred  books  in- 
to the  same  crucible  and  kindles  the  same  fire 
under  each  of  them.  After  burning  the  drpss  out 
of  all  of  them  alike,  it  finds  in  each  of  them 
much  pure  silver  left — much  without  which  the 
-world  w^ould  be  poor  indeed. 

The  debate  on  Shakespeare  and  his  writings 
will  never  settle  until  the  Higher  Criticism  does 
the  w^ork.  Some  iconoclasts  have  gone  so  far  as 
to  deny  that  such  a  man  as  William  Shakespeare 
ever  existed;  others  admit  that  he  existed,  but 
argue  that  he  w^as  only  an  inferior  actor  at 
best — a  drunken  loafer;  and  that  he  never  could 
have  written  the  plays  which  go  by  his  name. 

A  few  years  since  an  able  and  popular  maga- 
zine had  a  symposium  in  its  columns  on  the  sub- 
ject of  "Who  wrote  Shakespeare's  plays?"  which 
lasted  a  whole  year.  W^hether  the  people  were 
any  "wiser  after  having  read  these  articles  is  a 
question.    I  will  say  this;  the  application  of  the 


82     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

principles  of  the  Higher  Criticism  to  the  writ- 
ings of  *'The  Bard  of  Avon,"  has  led  nearly,  if 
not  quite  all  deep  students,. who  had  no  axes  to 
grind,  to  say,  yes,  Shakespeare  lived;  he  was  an 
actor,  and  wrote  plays;  but  it  w^as  many  years 
before  his  plays  Avere  printed.  The  tastes  of  the 
world  had  greatly  changed  in  that  time;  so 
much  so  that  those  who  put  Shakespeare^s 
plays  on  the  boards,  found  it  necessary  to  change 
some  passages  in  them  so  as  to  adapt  them  to 
the  popular  tastes  of  the  time  and  locality  of 
their  production  before  the  people.  Thus,  per- 
haps, whole  stanzas  -were  taken  out  and  others 
added;  among  them  an  occasional  paragraph 
which  could  not  by  any  possibility  have  been 
written  by  the  great  bard. 

Thus  has  it  been  with  the  Bible;  there  is  little 
room  to  deny  the  existence  of  the  man  of  Naz- 
areth, yet  hundreds,  and  among  them  honest, 
learned  and  able  men  have  satisfied  themselves 
and  others  that  he  never  existed. 

Long  after  Jesus'  death  the  thought  occurred 
to  some  of  them  who  thought  they  believed  in 
him,  that  as  other  nations  had  been  supposed 
to  produce  children  born  of  the  friendly  relation 
which  existed  between  gods  and  girls  it  would 
not  be  a  bad  thing  to  make  a  semi-god  of  Jesus; 
so  the  dream  of  Joseph,  the  probable  father 
of  Jesus,  (seejno.  i.  45,)  was  invented  and  put 
into  certain  manuscripts  nearly  one  thousand 
years  before  the  art  of  printing  prevented  such 
interpolations. 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM — WHAT  IT  IS.  83 

As  stars  had  told  of  the  births  of  Zoroaster, 
Brahma  and  Buddha,  Moses,  the  Caesars,  and 
other  great  men;  and  as  it  was  not  at  that 
time  known  to  be  impossible  for  stars  to  behave 
in  that  manner,  it  became  necessary  to  interpo- 
late the  story  about  the  queer  behavior  of  the 
Star  of  Bethlehem.  The  story  of  the  slaying 
of  the  children  of  Bethlehem,  and  the  surrounding 
country  every  one  who  thinks  at  all  knows  to 
be  impossible.  All  these  things  and  other  mir- 
acles represented  as  having  occurred  in  connection 
with  the  birth  of  Christ  can  be  demonstrated  to 
not  have  occurred  at  all.  Many  were  led  to  reject 
the  truths  hidden  in  this  chaff.  As  an  in- 
stance, connected  with  the  death  of  Jesus,  who 
can  believe  that  the  veil  of  the  temple  could 
have  been  rent  in  twain  from  the  top  to  the 
bottom,  and  the  Jews  who  were  in  the  temple 
at  that  very  moment,  and  every  day  from  that 
time  until  its  destruction  by  Titus,  over  a  quar- 
ter of  a  century  afterwards,  never  have  heard 
of  the  mishap  that  occurred  to  the  veil. 

The  fact  is,  these  stories  have  been  proven  to 
be  after- thoughts.  The  result  of  all  this  was, 
that  many  good  and  wise  people,  thinking  those 
stories  to  be  part  of  the  real  history  of  the  Naz- 
arene,  and  not  knowing  but  that  they  must  re- 
ceive or  reject  the  whole  together,  have  been  led 
to  deny  the  existence  of  such  a  person  as  Jesus. 
From  this  it  was  not  a  great  step  to  that  con- 
dition   where   honest    and    somewhat   educated 


84     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

men  felt  it  their  duty  to  overthrow  faith  in  a 
book  which  contains  such  stories. 

It  has  been  urged  that  there  w^ere  many  other 
pretended  revelations  besides  our  Bible,  and  sev- 
eral other  divine  personages  bom  into  the  world 
besides  the  man  of  Nazareth;  that  many  of 
those  revelations  w^ere  given  to  a  more  progres- 
sive and  vdse  people  than  the  Hebrews;  the 
question  is  often  asked:  "Why  should  the  Hebrews 
have  the  only  true  Revelation?  Why  should  all 
the  rest  be  frauds,  and  this  alone  be  true?  In 
short,  why  should  a  just  God  create  a  world  and 
then  abandon  all  of  it  except  a  few  Hebrew 
brick  makers?" 

These  questions  are  pertinent,  and  cannot  be 
sneered  down.  They  involuntarily  ask  them- 
selves, and  demand  an  answer.  Yet  those  who 
use  the  Bible  as  a  fetish— as  God's  only,  and  in- 
fallible revelation,  cannot  answer  them. 

In  answer  to  the  above  questions  I  will  state 
that  God  has  not  abandoned  any  part  of  the 
world;  spirit  communion,  once  supposed  to  be 
God's  communication,  is  as  universal  as  human- 
ity. There  has  never  been  a  people  who  have  not 
enjoyed  communication  vi^ith  spiritual  beings,  and 
have  hence  supposed  themselves  the  particular 
favorites  of  heaven.  Revelations  and  Bibles 
have  been  as  jealous  of  each  other  as  silly  people 
-are  today. 

This  matter  has  gone  so  far  that  in  former 
times,  * 'God's  people,"  no  matter  what  nation 
or  what  God  it  was,  would  not  defile  themselves 


THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM— WHAT  IT  IS.  85 

by  eating  with  other  people.  Paul  told  his 
bretheren  of  certain  persons  with  whom  they  must 
not  cat.  I  Cor.  v,  11.  He  also  blamed  Peter 
for  eating  with  the  Gentiles  and  then  not  allow- 
ing his  bretheren  the  same  privilege.  Gal.  ii.  11, 
12.  Buddhists  and  Brahmins  must  on  no  account 
eat  with  others  not  of  their  cult.  The  Chinese 
believe  the  "Flowery  Kingdom"  to  be  the  only 
one  that  God  recognizes;  and  most  of  them 
abhor  the  ignorant  barbarisms  of  Caucasian* 
and  other  races. 

Spiritualism  teaches,  and  the  Higher  Criticism 
emphasizes  what  Paul  quoted  from  the  heath- 
ens, and  the  comments  he  made  when  he  said: 
"For  certain  of  your  own  poets  have  said,  'for  we 
are  also  his  offspring.'  God  hath  made  of  one 
blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the 
face  of  the  earth."    See  Acts  xvii,  26-28. 

Peter,  when  he  first  began  his  work,  thought 
God  knew  no  other  people,  nor  cared  for  any 
others  than  the  Jews.  And,  of  course  there  could 
be  no  salvation  except  through  the  Jewish  sav- 
ior. In  Acts  iv.  12,  he  said:  "Neither  is  there 
salvation  in  any  other;  for  there  is  none  other 
name  under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby 
we  must  be  saved."  After  a  while  he  learned 
that  "God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  that 
in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth  God  and  work- 
eth  righteousness  is  accepted  of  him."  Acts  x. 
34,  35. 

The  flow  of  inspiration  is  always  from  heaven 
towards  earth;  certain   spirits  have   au  interest 


S6        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

in  those  left  behind,  and  the  gods  have  generally 
worked  for  their  own  people  and  for  none  others: 
hence  every  nation  has  supposed  itself  the  pecu- 
liar favorite  of  heaven. 

As  each  god  worked  for  his  own  peculiar  peo- 
ple, and  was  jealous  of  any  interference  from 
other  gods  who  might  obtrude  their  presence 
and  undertake  to  take  their  business  from  them 
it  was  natural  that  their  people  should  regard 
themselves  as  the  only  people  with  whom  their 
god  would  deal. 

Even  when  they  learned  of  the  existence  of 
other  gods,  and  of  their  revelations,  it  was  their 
duty  to  think  theirs  the  very  best  of  all  gods, 
and  their  revelations  vsriser  and  better  than  any 
other  gods  could  impart.  It  now  becomes  the 
duty  of  those  having  the  various  cults  in 
charge,  to  strive  by  argument  and  by  sword  to 
bolster  up  their  own  religion  and  to  cry  all 
others  down. 

All  mediums  were,  perhaps,  inspired  up  to 
their  capacity,  or  at  least  to  their  development, 
and  all  Bibles  contain  the  best  truths  that  the 
people  to  whom  they  were  given  at  the  time 
could  receive.  Thus  as  we  examine  Bibles  wc 
will  receive  them,  not  as  finalities,  but  as  step- 
ping stones  towards  Bibles  yet  to  be  written. 

This  will  bring  the  readers  to  where  they  are 
ready  to  investigate  the  question  **\Vho  wrote 
the  Bible?" 


CHAPTER   IV. 

APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE. 

Pentateuch,  Meaning  of— Does  Jesus  Endorse  the  Mosaic 
Law? — The  Writer  of  Deuteronomy  and  Jesus  on  Loving 
your  Enemies — Two  Old  Testaments  in  Jesus'  day — 
Apostles  used  Apocryphal  Books— Quotatior.s  from  the 
Apocr^'iDhal  Old  Tcstanient- Books  of  the  Bible  quoted, 
not  now  known  to  Exist — Did  Moses  write  the  Latin 
Words  in  the  Pentateuch? 

I  HAVE  SAID  the  Higher  Criticism  is  a  criti- 
cism from  within,  or  from  the  inside.  I  think 
by  this  time  the  reader  is  prepared  to  approach 
that  work.  We  will  begin  with  a  few  general 
dissertations  on  which  is  commonl3'  called  the 
Pentateuch;  that  is,  the  first  five  books  of  the 
Bible,  said  to  be  the  five  books  of  Moses.  The 
word  Pentateuch  means  live-fold  book.  Most  of 
the  late  writers  include  the  book  of  Joshua,  and 
call  it  the  Hexateuch,  or  six-fold  book. 

It  has  been  argued  that  Aloses  must  be  the 
author  of  these  books,  and  that  the^^  must 
be  divine,  as  Jesus  and  the  apostles  everywhere 
recognized  them  as  such;  and  to  invalidate  their 
authorship  would  be  to  invalidate  the  authority 
of  the  world's  Savior. 


88        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

The  answer  to  this  is  that  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  quoted  from  them,  and  received  them 
as  the  Spiritualists  do  today,  neither  necessarily 
endorsing  or  rejecting  them. 

If  a  truth  happened  to  be  found  in  them  Jesug 
endorsed  it;  so,  if  he  found  something  which 
seemed  to  him  to  be  erroneous  he  rejected  it. 
In  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount  he  quotes  many 
commandments  .  for  no  other  purpose  than  to 
express  his  dissent  from  them.  Rev.  Washington 
Gladden  says: 

"Our  Lord  nowhere  ssljs  that  the  first  five  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  were  all  written  by  Moses.  Much 
less  does  he  teach  that  the  contents  of  these  books  are 
all  equally  inspired  and  authoritative.  Indeed  he 
quotes  from  them  several  times  for  the  express  purpose 
of  repudiating  their  doctrines  and  repealing  their  leg- 
islation. In  the  ver3^  forefront  of  his  teaching  stands 
a'stern  array  of  judgments  in  which  undoubted  com- 
mands of  the  Mosaic  Law  are  expressly  condemned 
and  set  aside,  some  of  them  because  they  are  inade- 
quate and  superficial,  some  of  them  because  they  are 
morally  defective.  *Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been 
said  by  them  of  old  time'  thus  and  thus,  'But  I  say 
unto  you' — and  then  follow  words  that  directly  con- 
tradict the  old  legislation.  After  quoting  two  of  the 
commandments  of  the  Decalogue,  and  giving  them  an 
interpretation  that  wholly  transforms  them,  he  pro- 
ceeds to  cite  several  old  laws  from  these  Mosaic  books, 
in  order  to  set  his  own  firmly  against  them.  One  of 
these  also,  is  a  law  of  the  Decalogue  itself.  There  can 
be  but  little  doubt  but  that  the  third  commandment 
is  quoted  and  criticised  by  our  Lord,  in  this  discourse. 
That  commandment  forbids,  not  chiefly  profanity,  but 


APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE.  89 

pcrjur}^;  by  implication  it  permits  judicial  oaths. 
And  Jesus  expressly  forbids  judicial  oaths.  .'Swear  not 
at  all.'  I  am  aware  that  this  is  not  the  usual  inter- 
pretation of  these  words,  but  1  believe  that  it  is  the 
only  meaning  the  words  will  bear.  Not  to  insist  upon 
this,  however,  several  other  examples  arc  given  in  tbe 
discourse  concerning  which  there  can  be  no  question." 
Jesus  ({uoted  Moses,  or  rather  the  writer  of 
Deuteromony  on  diA^orce.  He  refers  to  Deut. 
xxiv.  1,2,  which  told  on  what  terms  and  how  a 
man  could  divorce  an  unreasonable  wife;  but 
Jesus  referred  to  this  in  order  to  tell  his  friends 
that  he  had  a  different  opinion  from  this  writer. 
In  Matt.  V.  31,  32,  he  says: 

"It  hath  been  said,  whosoever  shall  put  aw^ay  his 
wife,  let  him  give  her  a  writing  of  divorcement;  but  I 
say  unto  you,  that  whosoever  shall  put  away  his 
wife,  saving  for  the  cause  of  fornication,  causeth  her 
to  commit  adultery;  and  whosoever  shall  marry  her 
that  is  divorced  committeth  adultery." 

If  Jesus  quotes  the  sixth  commandment,  he 
quotes  to  improve  it,  and  he  informs  his  ^^iends 
that  whosoever  hates  his  brother  without  cause 
has  violated  its  spirit.     See  Matt.  v.  21,  22. 

When  Jesus  quotes  "An  eye  for  an  eye  and  a 
tooth  for  a  tooth,"  he  quotes  it  because  he  does 
not  endorse  it.  He  follows  all  ^hese  quotations 
with  the  disjunctive  conjuacdon  *'but."  See 
verses  38,  39. 

It  is  no  part  of  my  present  work  to  say  who 
was  right,  Jesus,  or  the  author  of  the  comm^and- 
ments  he  quoted.  All  that  is  necessary  to  do 
now  is  to  show  that  Jesus  took  a  different  view 


90        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

of  things  from  the  writer  or  writers  he  quotes. 
Jesus  said:  ''love  your  enemies,"  but  the  Penta- 
teuch writer  had  said,  in  Deut.  vii.  1-4. 

"When  the  Lord,  thy  God  shall  bring  thee  into  the 
land,  whither  thou  gi  st  to  possess  it,  and  hath  cast 
out  many  nations  before  thee,  the  Hittites,  and  the 
Girgashites,  and  the  Amorites,  and  the  Canaanites,  and 
the  Perizites,  and  the  Hivites,  and  the  Jebusites,  seven 
nations  greater  and  mighter  than  thou;  and  when  the 
Lord  thy  God  shall  deliver  them  before  thee;  thou  shalt 
smite  them  and  utterly  destroy  them;  thou  shall  make 
no  covenant  with  them,  nor  show  mercy  to  them.'' 

I  submit  that  this  does  not  look  much  like 
loving  one's  enemies,  and  doing  good  to  those 
who  despitefully  used  them.  The  old  theory 
which  Jesus  opposed  is  stated  still  stronger  in 
Deut.  xxiii.  3-6.    Here  it  is. 

**An  Ammonite  or  a  Moabite  shall  not  enter  into  the 
congregation  of  the  Lord;  even  to  their  tenth  genera- 
tion shall  they  not  enter  into  the  congregation  of  the 
Lord  forever.  *  *  *  Thou  shalt  not  seek  their  peace  nor 
their  prosperity  all  thy  days  forever." 

This  is  enough  to  show  that  the  two  sets  of 
views,  one  put  into  the  Pentateuch  by  somebody 
and  the  other  held  by  Jesus,  were  utterly 
irreconcilable. 

It  is  argued  that  Jesus  urged  the  Jews  to 
search  the  scriptures;  and,  that  Paul  told  Timo- 
thy that  ** all  scripture  was  written  by  inspira- 
tion of  God." 

In  answer  to  that  I  will  invite  the  reader  to 
carefully  rft-read  the  first  chapter  of  this  book, 
where  this  matter  is  fully  explained. 


APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE.  91 

It  may  be  well  to  say  here,  that  there  was  in 
Jesus'  day  two  collections  of  the  Jewish  Script- 
ures, that  is,  of  what  we  now  call  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. I  cannot  state  the  matter  more  clearly 
or  concisely  than  Dr.  Gladden  has  done.  On 
pages  8-10,  of  ''Who  Wrote  the  Bible?    He  say- 

"At  the  time  when  our  Lord  was  on  the  earth,  i  ae 
sacred  writings  of  the  Jews  were  collected  in  two  dif- 
ferent forms.  The  Palestinian  collection,  so  called,  was 
written  in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  the  Alexandrian 
collection,  called  the  Septuagint,  in  Greek.  For  many 
3^ears  a  large  colony  of  devout  and  learned  Jews  had 
lived  in  Alexandria;  and  as  the  Greek  language  was 
spoken  there,  and  had  become  their  common  speech, 
they  translated  their  sacred  w^ritings  into  Gi^jk.  This 
translation  soon  came  into  general  use,  because  there 
were  everyw^here  manj'  Jews  who  knew  Greek  well 
enough  but  no  Hebrew  at  all.  When  our  Lord  was 
on  earth,  the  Hebrew  was  a  dead  language;  it  may 
have  been  the  language  of  the  temple,  as  Latin  is  now 
the  language  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Mass;  but  the 
common  people  did  not  understand  it;  the  vernacular 
of  the  Palestinian  Jews  was  the  Aramaic,  a  language 
similar  to  the  Hebrew,  sometimes  called  the  later  He- 
brew, and  having  some  such  relation  to  it  as  the 
English  has  to  the  German  tongue.  *  *  *  At  any  rate 
the  change  had  taken  place  before  the  coming  of  Christ, 
so  that  no  Hebrew  was  spoken  familiarly  in  Palestine. 
When  the  Hebrew  tongue  is  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament  it  is  the  Aramaic  that  is  meant,  and  not 
the  ancient  Hebrew.  The  Greek,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  a  living  language;  it  was  spoken  on  the  streets 
and  in  the  markets  everywhere,  and  man3'  Jews  under- 
stood   it    almost   as    well  as  thev   did   their    Aramaic 


92        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

vernacular.  ♦  *  »  The  Greek  version  of  the  scriptures 
was,  for  this  reason,  more  freely  used  by  the  Jews  even 
in  Palestine  than  the  Hebrew  original;  it  was  from  the 
Septuagint  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  made  most  of 
their  quotations.  Out  of  three  hundred  and  fifty  cita- 
tions in  the  New  Testament  from  the  Old  Testament 
writings  about  three  hundred  appear  to  be  directly 
from  the  Greek   version  made  at  Alexandria." 

This  needs  no  other  comment  than  to  say  it 
is  true,  and  that  no  scholar  will  deny  it.  In 
Jesus'  day,  what  is  now  called  the  Canon  of 
the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  was  not  closed. 
Many  books  were  in  dispute,  and  the  matter 
was  not  settled  until  a  full  half  century  after 
Jesus  had  left  the  world.  While  this  was  not 
true  of  the  Alexandrian  or  Greek  versions,  called 
the  Septuagint,  which  was  the  one  Jesus  quoted ^ 
it  is  true  that  that  version  contained  the  Apoc- 
ryphal portion  of  the  Old  Testament  which  all 
Protestants  now  reject.  It  is  also  true  that 
the  apostles  quoted  from  the  Apocryphal  books 
with  as  much  confidence  that  they  were  quoting 
from  ''holy  writ"  as  when  they  quoted  from 
other  books.     Dr.  Gladden  says. 

"They  handled  these  scriptures,  quoted  from  them; 
found  inspired  teaching  in  them;  but  the  scriptures 
which  they  chiefly  handled,  from  which  they  generally 
quoted,  in  which  they  found  their  inspired  teaching, 
contained,  as  we  know,  worthless  matter.  It  is  not 
to  be  assumed  that  they  did  not  know  this  matter  to 
be  worthless;  and  if  they  knew  this,  it  is  not  to  be 
asserted  that  they  intended  to  place  upon  it  the  stamp 
of  their  approval."— "TT^/ia  Wrote  the   Bible,''   p.  29. 


APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE.  93 

I  said  the  Apocryphal  books  were  quoted  by 
the  apostles.  Jude  in  verse  14,  quotes  from  the 
book  of  Enoch  as  follows: 

"And  Enoch,  the  seventh  from  Adam,  prophesied  of 
these  things,  saying,  behold,  the  Lord  cometh  with 
ten  Thousand  of  his  saints." 

How  Jude  should  get  the  Enoch  who  lived  and 
wrote  only  two  hundred  years  before  his  own 
day  mixed  with  the  one  who  w^as  the  seventh 
from  Adam  is  hard  to  tell.  This  serves  to  show 
the  liability  of  Bible  writers  to  err.  James  i.  9, 
says  ''Let  every  man  be  swift  to  hear,  slow  to 
speak."  The  book  of  Sirach  says:  "Be  swift  to 
hear,"  and  in  another  place  the  same  book  says: 
"Be  not  hasty  with  thy  tongue."  Keb.  i.  3,  is 
taken  with  only  the  change  of  one  or  two  words 
from  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  vii.  26.  Ro.  ix.  21, 
says: 

"Hath  not  the  potter  power  over  the  clay,  of  the 
same  lump  to  make  one  vessel  unto  honor  and  anoth- 
er unto  dishonor." 

Now  turn  to  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  xv.  7,  and 
you  can  read: 

"For  the  potter  tempering  soft  earth  fashioneth 
every  vessel  with  much  labor  for  our  service;  yea,  of 
the  same  clay  maketh  he  both  the  vessels  that  serve 
clean  uses,  and  likewise  also  such  as  serve  to  the  con- 
trary; but  what  is  the  use  of  either  sort  the  potter 
himself  is  the  judge." 

I  Cor.  ii.  11,  says:  "For  what  man  knoweth  the 
things  of  man  save  the  spirit  of  man  which  is 
in  him?  even  so,  the  spirit  of  God  knoweth  no 


94        THE   BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

man,  but  the  spirit  of  God."  Now  turn  to 
Judith  vii.  14,  and  read: 

"For  ye  cannot  find  the  depth  of  the  heart  of  man, 
neither  can  ye  perceive  the  things  that  he  thinketh: 
then  how  can  ye  search  out  God  that  hath  made  all 
these  things,  and  know  his  mind,  or  comprehend  his 
purpose?  Nay,  my  bretheren,  provoke  not  the  Lord  our 
God  to  anger." 

Nobody  pretends  to  believe  that  we  have  the 
books  of  Moses  as  written  by  Moses.  All  ac- 
knowledge that  these  books  were  lost,  but  many 
good  Christians  claim  that  they  were  found 
again  in  clearing  away  the  debris  preparatory^  to 
rebuilding  the  Temple,  described  in  II  Kin.  xxv. 
and  II  Chron.  xxxiv.  Others  claimed  that  Ezra 
re- wrote  the  Pentateuch  b3^  inspiration.  This 
idea  is  sustained  by  the  Apocrapha,  in  II  Esdras 
xiv.  1-3,  where  an  angel  appears  to  Esdras, 
(Ezra)  in  a  bush.  He  purports  to  be  the  same 
angel  who  appeared  to  Moses  in  the  burning  bush, 
and  \vho  was  Avith  Moses  in  the  wilderness.  This 
angel  gives  Esdras  a  drink  of  something  which 
thoroughly  inspires  him  and  enables  him  to 
dictate  to  his  scribes  two  hundred  and  four 
books.  Most  of  these  books  however,  were  not 
written.  The  books  which  v^ere  written  were 
supposed  to  be  a  redaction  of  the  law  of 
Moses.    See  II  Esdras  xiv.  37-47. 

Before  getting  too  deep  into  this  subject  I  will 
say  that  our  Bible  refers  to  and  quotes  more  fre- 
quently from  books  not  now  known  to  be  in 
existence  than  from  others.    I  do  not  now  think 


APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE.  95 

of  but  one  place  where  the  prophets  refer  to  the 
law  of  Moses;  that  is  in  Mai.  iv.  4.  *  'Remember  ye 
the  law  of  Moses  my  servant,  which  I  command- 
ed unto  him  in  Horeb  for  all  Israel,  with  the 
statutes  ^nd  judgments."  This  will  be  commented 
on  later. 

I  will  refer  to  a  few  places  where  books  are 
mentioned  which  are  not  in  our  Bibles.  I  will 
quote  them  and  ask  the  reader  to  try  to  ascer- 
tain how  our  Christian  neighbors  reconcile  them 
with  the  statements  in  Mr.  Talmage's  sermon 
before  quoted  or  with  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion of  faith,  where  it  speaks  about  our  Bibles 
"Being  immediately  inspired  by  God,  and  by  his 
singular  care  and  providence  kept  pure  in  all 
ages." 

In  Num.  xxi.  14,  15,  w^e  read:  * 'Wherefore  it  is 
said  in  the  book  of  the  Wars  of  the  Lord,  what  he 
did  in  the  Red  Sea  and  in  the  books  of  Arnon." 
In  fact  several  verses  are  here  quoted  from  this 
book  of  the  "Wars  of  the  Lord." 

In  Sam.  i.  17,  18,  is  the  story  of  David's 
lamentation  over  Saul  and  Jonathan,  and  the 
fact  that  he  bade  them  teach  the  children  the 
use  of  the  bow,  and  adds:  "It  is  written  in  the 
book  of  Jasher."    I  Chron.  xxix.  29  says: 

"Now  the  acts  of  David  the  king,  first  and  last,  be- 
hold, they  are  written  in  the  book  of  Samuel,  the  seer, 
and  in  the  book  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  the  book 
of  Gad,  the  seer." 

It  strikes  me  that  a  book  written  by  either  of 
these  three  gentlemen  would  be  of  immense  im- 


96         THE   BIBLE  AND   THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

portance;  but  neither  of  these  books  have  been 
preserved,  and  handed  down  with  the  MSS 
v^hich  makes  our  Bible.      II  Chron.  ix.  29,  says: 

"Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Solomon,  first  and  last, 
are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  Nathan  the  proph- 
et, and  in  the  prophecy  of  Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  and 
the  visions  of  Iddo  the  seer  against  Jeroboam  the  son 
of  Nebat?" 

Here  reference  is  made  to  several  books  which 
have  never,  in  this  age  of  the  v^orld,  been  seen. 
All  this  proves  what  I  have  said,  that  our  Bi- 
ble is  not  a  book;  it  is  a  mosaic,  made  up  of 
selections  from  various  sources.  But  of  this, 
more  when  I  get  to  the  chapter  on  the  Canon. 

Besides  what  I  have  given  you,  we  are  inform- 
ed in  II  Chron.  xxvi.  22,  that  Isaiah,  the  proph- 
et, the  son  of  Amoz,  wrote  a  history  of  Uzziah, 
king  of  Judah.  There  is  nothing  of  the  kind  in 
our  Bible.  We  must  therefore  conclude  that  the 
great  prophet  wrote  a  book  which  has  not 
reached  us. 

It  is  now  time  that  we  came  more  closely  to 
the  so-called  "Five  Books  of  Moses"  themselves. 
As  an  introduction  I  will  quote  once  more  from 
Rev.  Mr.  Gladden.  On  pages  18,  19,  of  his  ad- 
mirable w^ork  he  says: 

"Who  wrote  these  books?  Our  modern  Hebrew  Bi- 
bles give  them  the  general  titles,  'Quinque  Libra  Mo- 
sis.'  This  means  'The  Five  Books  of  Moses.'  But  Mo- 
ses could  never  have  given  them  that  title,  for  these 
are  Latin  words,  and  it  is  not  possible  that  Moses 
should  have  used  the  Latin  language,  because  there 
was  no  Latin  language  in  the  world  until  many  hun- 


APPROACH  TO  THE  BIBLE.  97 

dreds  of  years  after  the  day  of  Moses.  The  Latin 
title  was  given  to  them  of  course  by  the  editors  who 
compiled  them.  The  preface  and  explanatory  notes  in 
these  Hebrew  Bibles  are  also  written  in  Latin. 
*  *  *  When  we  look  at  our  English  Bibles  we  find  no 
separation,  as  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  of  these  five 
books  from  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament  writings, 
but  w^e  find  over  each  one  of  them  a  title  by  which 
it  is  ascribed  to  Moses  as  its  author,— 'The  First  Book 
of  Moses,  commonly'  called  Genesis.'  'The  Second 
Book  of  Moses,  commonh'  called  Exodus;'  and  so  on. 
But  when  I  look  into  m3'  Hebrew  Bible  again  no  such 
title  is  there.  Nothing  is  said  about  Moses  in  the 
Hebrew  title  of  Genesis. 

It  is  certain  that  if  Moses  wrote  these  books  he  did 
not  call  them  'Genesis,'  'Exodus,'  'Leviticus,'  'Num- 
bers,' 'Deuteronomy,'  for  these  words  again  come 
from  languages  that  he  never  heard.  Four  of  them 
are  Greek  words,  and  one  of  them,  Numbers,  is  a 
Latin  word.  These  names  were  given  to  the  several 
books  at  a  very  late  da\^" 

The  scholars  of  the  world  are  now  agreed  that 
Moses  was  not  the  author  of  these  books.  Prof. 
Ladd,  of  Yale  College — a  man  whom  no  one  would 
suspect  of  any  leaning  away  from  the  Orthodox 
intrepretation  of  the  Bible,  says: 

"With  very  few  exceptions  anywhere,  and  with  al- 
most no  exceptions  in  those  places  where  the  Old 
Testament  is  studied  with  the  most  freedom  and 
breadth  of  learning,  the  whole  world  of  scholars  has 
abandoned  the  ancient  tradition  that  the  Pentateuch, 
in  such  form  as  we  now  have  it  is  the  work  of  Moses." 

Many  testimonies  similar  to  the  above  might 
be  given  but  this  will  suffice. 


98        THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

We  are  now  prepared  with  the  opening  of  the 
next  chapter,  to  begin  an  inside  view  of  the 
contents  of  the  books  of  the  Bible.  I  shall  not 
take  the  books  in  the  order  in  which  they  have 
been  written,  but  in  the  order  in  which  they  are 
placed  in  our  Bible.  Many  of  the  prophetic  books 
are  older  than  the  Pentateuch. 


CHAPTER  V. 

MORE  OUTSIDE  TESTIMONY. 

A  FEW  THINGS  IN  GENESIS. 

A  Plurality  of  Gods — Word  eight  times  translated  Jehovah 
is  Eight  thousand  times  Translated  Lord — Contradictions 
in  First  and  Second  Chapters  of  Genesis — Astruc's  Dis- 
covery— The  Pentateuch  Young — A  More  Ancient  Moses — 
Two  Stories  of  the  Flood— Same  of  Beer-sheba — Rev.  R. 
Heber  Newton  against  Inerrency  of  Old  Testament — A 
Quaker  Scholar  on  Genesis— Sensible  Remarks  from  Rev. 
John  Chad  wick. 

It  will  be  impossible  for  me  in  this  chapter  to 
avoid  saying  something  on  the  book  of  Genesis, 
although  the  subject  properly  comes  up  in  the 
next  chapter.  There  has  been  much  controversy 
over  this  book  for  nearl3^,  or  quite  two  thous- 
and years.  Many  of  the  recognized  mistakes  in 
it  have  been  excused  on  the  ground  that  the 
author,  supposed  to  be  Moses,  undertook  to 
cover  the  entire  history  of  twenty-five  hundred 
years  of  the  world  in  fifty  short  chapters.  In 
this  history  he  tells  of  the  first  manufacturing 
of  the  world;  of  its  destruction  by  a  flood;  of  its 
being  re-fitted  and    re-peopled    after  that  event. 


100     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

The  brevity  with  which  the  whole  had  to  be 
-written  left  no  time  or  space  to  go  into  details- 
nor  for  the  correction  of  seeming  errors. 

In  all  my  discourses  on  this  subject  during  the 
last  third  of  a  century  I  have  asserted  and 
tried  to  prove  that  this  book  had  at  least  two- 
authors.  In  the  first  place,  there  are  two  sets 
of  gods  running  through  the  book.  In  the 
first  chapter,  and  the  first  three  verses  of  the 
second  chapter  the  v^ord  God  occurs  thirty-two 
times.  Any  scholar  will  tell  you  that  in  all 
these  places  the  Hebrew  word  is  Elohim,  and 
is  plural.  Indeed  that  was  one  of  the  arguments 
once  used  to  prove  the  trinity.  It  should  in 
every  instance  be  rendered,  the  gods.  Gen.  i.  26, 
says:  ''and  God  said,  let  us  make  man  in  our 
image,  and  after  our  likeness." 

Beginning  with  Gen.  ii.  3,  and  going  through 
the  entire  second  and  third  chapters  a  god  whom 
v\re  call  Yahweh,  is  introduced.  Our  English 
Bible,  in  these  chapters,  calls  him  "The  Lord 
God"  nineteen  times. 

'  That  word  rendered  Lord  here  followed  hy 
the  Avord  God,  Yahweh-God,  or  Jehovah-God ,. 
occurs  over  eight  thousand  times  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  and  is  translated /eAova/z  eight  times — that 
is,  once  in  one  thousand  times.  In  all  other 
places  it  is  put  in  as  though  it  signified  an  office 
or  rank.  In  our  Bible  it  will  always  be  found 
in  small  capital  letters.  Wherever  the  word  oc- 
curs in  small  caps,  in  our  Bible,  the  original  is- 
Yahweh.      To  prove  that  I  am  not  mistaken  in 


MORE   OUTSIDE  TESTIMONY.  101 

all  this  I  will  quote  once  more  from  IJr.   Glad- 
den.     On  page  47  he  saj^s: 

"In  the  Book  of  Genesis  the  evidence  of  the  combi- 
atior.  of  two  documents  is  so  obvious  that  he  who 
runs  ir.ay  read.  These  two  documents  are  distinguish- 
ed fro  It  each  other,  partly  by  the  style  of  writing,  and 
partly  .y  different  names  which  they  apply  to  the  Su- 
preme Being,  One  of  these  old  writers  calls  the  Deity 
Elohim,  the  other  calls  him  Yaveh,  or  Jehovah.  These 
documents  are  known  therefore  as,  Elohistic,  and  Je- 
hovistic  narratives." 

Religioiiists  have  tried  for  a  thousand  years  to 
harmonize  the  first  and  the  second  chapters  of 
Genesis,  as  well  as  some  other  things  in  the 
book,  and  have  failed.  In  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  God— the  god&  made  heaven  and  the 
earth,  and  the  firmament,  and  then  had  the  earth 
bring  forth  grass,  fruit  and  herbs.  Next,  God, 
or  rather  the  gods  made  light;  the  sun,  moon, 
**and  he  made  the  stars  also."  Then  the  ''wat- 
-ers  brought  forth  abundantly"  "the  many  crea- 
tures." Not  only  whale  but  fowl,  "and  every 
livins:  creature  that  moveth."  Then  the  earth 
brought  forth  cattle  and  creeping  things.  After 
all  this  man  and  woman  are  made  "in  our  im- 
age; and  after  our  likeness."  Then  the  gods  gave 
man  and  woman  everything.  No  "garden  was 
planted  eastward  in  Eden."  Then  he,  or  they, 
wind  up  by  "ending  his  work"  and  resting  on 
the  Sabbath. 

In  the  second  chapter  Jehovah,  or  "The  Lord 
God,"  goes  to  work,  but  he  works  in  a  different 
manner  from  the  other  gods  called  Elohim.    He 


102     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

begins  by  making  plants  and  herbs,  "before  thev 
wrere  in  the  earth."  Though  the  Elohim  had  just 
made  a  man  and  a  woman  "there  was  not  a 
man  to  till  the  ground."  Then  he  planted  a 
garden  for  him  in  the  eastern  portion  of  Eden. 
He  puts  every  thing  that  was  good  in  the  gar- 
den and  one  tree  besides,  that  bore  poison  fruit. 
He  caused  four  rivers  to  head  there  and  run  out 
in  different  directions. 

Next  the  Lord  God  formed  the  beasts  of  the 
field  and  every  fowl  and  brought  them  to  Adam 
to  be  named.  It  was  here  that  the  discovery 
was  made  that  Adam  had  no  help-meet  and  that 
it  was  not  good  for  him  to  be  alone;  so  he  was 
put  to  sleep  and  a  rib  taken  out  and  a  woman 
manufactured  of  that  bone. 

I  might  carry  the  story  of  these  contrad'ctions 
through  almost  the  whole  book,  but  for  the  pres- 
ent this  is  enough.  As  before  remarked,  men 
have  worked  more  than  a  thousand  years  to 
harmonize  these  difficulties,  but  without  success. 
Finally  about  the  year  1750  the  thought  occurred 
to  a  P'rench  physican  by  the  name  of  Astruc, 
that  the  book  of  Genesis  was  made  up  of  older 
documents,  and  that  originally  it  had  at  least 
two  authors — worshippers  of  two  different  deities. 
He  separated  the  documents  one  from  the  other. 
When  he  had  done  this  he  had  the  outlines  of 
two  different  books;  for  this  discovery  he  was 
bitterly  persecuted,  and  came  near  losing  his 
life.    Now  all  criticism  says  he  was  ri^ht.  ' 


MORE  OUTSIDE  TESTIMONY.  103 

On  Astruc's  discoveries  and  persecutions  An- 
drew D.  White  writes  as  follows: 

"The  second  of  these  books  was  Astruc's  'Conjectures 
on  the  original  Memoirs  which  Moses  Used  in  Com- 
piling the  Book  of  Genesis,'  In  this  was  for  the  first 
time  clearly  revealed  the  fact,  that,  amid  various  frag- 
ments of  old  writings,  at  least  two  main  narratives 
enter  into  the  composition  of  Genesis;  that  in  the  first 
of  these  is  generalh^  used  as  an  appellation  of  the  Al- 
mighty the  word  'Elohim,'  and  in  the  second  the  word 
'Yahveh,'  (Jehovah;)  that  each  narrative  has  charac- 
teristics of  its  own,  in  thought  and  expression,  which 
distinguish  it  from  the  other;  that,  by  separating  these, 
two  {clear  and  distinct  narratives  may  be  obtained, 
each  consistent  with  itself,  and  that,  thus,  and  thus 
alone,  can  be  explained  the  repetitions,  discrepancies, 
and  contradictions  in  Genesis  which  so  long  baffled  the 
ingenuity  of  commentators,  especially  of  the  two  ac- 
counts of  the  creation,  so  utterly  inconsistent  with 
each  other. 

"Interesting  as  was  Lowth's  book,  this  work  of  As- 
true  was,  as  the  thinking  world  now  acknowledges, 
infinitely  more  important;  it  was  indeed  the  most  val- 
uable single  contribution  to  biblical  study.  But  such 
was  not  the  judgment  |of  the  world  then.  While 
Lowth's  book  was  covered  with  honor  and  its  author 
promoted  from  the  bishopric  of  St.  David's  to  that  of 
London,  and  even  offered  the  primacy,  Astruc  and  his 
book  were  covered  with  reproach.  Though  as  an  Or- 
thodox Catholic,  he  had  mainly  desired  to  reassert  the 
authorship  of  Moses  against  the  argument  of  Spinoza, 
he  received  no  thanks  on  that  account.  Theologians 
of  all  Creeds  sneered  at  him  as  a  doctor  of  medicine 
who  had  blundered  beyond  his  province;  his  fellow 
Catholics  in  France  bitierlv  denounced  him   as  a  here- 


104     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

tic;  and  in  Germany  the  great  Protestant  Theologian, 
Michaelis,  who  had  edited  and  exalted  Lowth's  work, 
poured  contempt  over  Astruc  as  an  ignoramus. 

"The  case  of  Astruc  is  one  of  many  which  show  the 
wonderful  power  of  the  older  theological  reasoning  to 
close  the  strongest  minds  against  the  clearest  truths. 
The  fact  which  he  discovered  is  now  as  definitely  estab- 
lished as  any  one  in  the  whole  range  of  literature 
or  science.  It  has  become  as  clear  as  the  day^ 
and  yet  for  ii  wo  thousand  years  the  minds  of  profes- 
sional theologians,  Jewish  and  Christian,  were  unable 
to  detect  it.  Not  until  this  eminent  physician  applied 
to  the  subject  a  mind  trained  in  making  scientific 
distinctions  was  it  given  to  the  world."  — Warfare  of 
Science,  Vol.  II,  pp  322-323, 

These  old  documents  contain  certain  anachron- 
isms which  prove  them  to  have  been  edited  or 
redacted  not  earlier  than  five  hundred  years  be- 
fore our  era. 

The  Pentateuch,  as  we  have  it  now,  is  much 
younger  than  many  other  portons  of  the  Bible; 
in  fact  it  did  not  assume  its  present  form  until 
about  four  hundred  years  before  Christ. 

The  older  stories,  the  history  of  creation,  the 
flood,  etc.,  have  been  found  to  be  old  Assyrian 
poems,  much  older  than  the  oldest  parts  of  the 
Bible.  While  I  cannot  now  refer  to  them  with 
full  references  to  original  documentary  proofs  I 
cannot  resist  the  temptation  to  quote  from  Mr. 
White  on  the  story  of  the  birth  of  a  king  one 
thousand  years  before  Moses.  In  his  ''Warfare 
of  Science  with  Theology,"  pp.  371-372,  he  has 
the  following* 


MORE  OUTSIDE  TESTIMONY.  105 

'The  more  general  conclusions  which  were  thus  given 
I  >  biblical  criticism  were  all  the  more  impressive  from 
che  fact  that  they  had  been  revealed  by  various  groups 
of  earnest  Christian  scholars  working  on  different  lines, 
by  different  methods,  and  in  various  parts  of  the  world. 
Very  honorable  was  the  full  and  frank  testimony  to 
these  results  given  in  1885  by  the  Rev.  Francis  Brown, 
a  professor  in  the  Presbyterian  Theological  Seminary 
at  New  York.  In  his  admirable  though  brief  book  on 
Assyriology,  starting  with  the  declaration-*  that  'it  is 
a  great  pity  to  be  afraid  of  facts,'  he  showed  how  As- 
syrian research  testifies  in  many  waj's  to  the  historical 
value  of  the  Bible  record;  but  at  the  same  time  he 
ireely  allowed  to  Chaldean  history  an  antiquity  fatal 
to  the  sacred  chronology  of  the  Hebrews.  He  also 
cast  aside  a  mass  of  doubtful  apologetics,  and  dealt 
frankly  with  the  fact  that  very  many  of  the  early  nar- 
ratives in  Genesis  belono^  to  the  common  stock  of 
ancient  tradition,  and,  mentioning  as  an  example  the 
cuneiform  inscriptions  which  record  a  story  of  the  Acca- 
dian  king  Sargon — how  'he  was  born  in  retirement, 
placed  by  his  mother  in  a  basket  of  rushes,  launched 
on  a  river,  rescued  and  brought  up  by  a  stranger,  af- 
ter which  he  became  king' — he  did  not  hesitate  to  re- 
mind his  readers  that  Sargon  lived  a  thousand  j^ears 
and  more  before  Moses;  that  this  story  was  told  of 
him  several  hundred  years  before  Moses  was  born;  and 
that  it  was  told  of  peveral  other  important  personages 
of  antiquity.  The  professor  dealt  just  as  honestly^ 
with  the  inscriptions  which  show  sundry  statements 
m  the  book  of  Daniel  to  be  unhistorical;  candidly 
making  admissions  which  but  a  short  time  before 
would  have  filled  orthodoxy  with  horror." 

As  I  explained  briefly  the  difference  in  the 
supposed  history  of  the  two  beginnings  in  Gen. 


106     THE   BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

i.  and  ii.,  so  I  must  briefly  refer  to  some  other 
Jehovistic  and  Elohistic  documents.  The  two 
stories  of  the  flood  are  so  mixed  that  it  would 
take  a  smart  lawyer  to  separate  them..  Let  us 
first  look  at  the  contradictions.  In  Gen.  vi.  19, 
the  Elohim  says:  "And,  of  every  living  thing  of 
all  flesh,  two  of  every  kind  shalt  thou  bring  into 
the  ark."  Now  turn  to  Gen.  vii.,  Elohim  gives 
place  to  the  other  God,  Jehovah,  who  says  in 
verse  2,  "Of  every  clean  beast  thou  shalt  take 
to  thee  by  sevens,  the  male  and  his  female." 

In  some  places  these  stories  very  nearly  agree, 
yet  they  are  two  documents  coming  from  two 
different  sources.  In  Gen.  vi.  5,  vntc  read:  "And 
God  (Jehovah)  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man 
was  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagin- 
ation of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually." 
Now  go  to  verses  11  and  12,  and  the  other 
"God  looked  upon  the  earth,  and  behold  it  was 
corrupt  before  God,  and  the  earth  was  filled 
with  violence."  Go  back  to  verse  7,  and  you 
will  hear  Jehovah  say:  "I  will  destroy  man  whom 
I  haA^e  created."  But  Elohim  is  not  to  be  beat- 
en in  that,  so  in  verse  13  he  says:  "The  earth  is 
filled  with  violence  through  them,  and  behold  I 
will  destroy  them  from  the  earth." 

In  verse  9,  we  read:  "Noah  was  a  righteous 
man  and  perfect  in  his  generation,  Noah  walked 
with  God" — Elohim.  In  vii.  1,  Jehovah  says  to 
Noah,  "Come  thou  and  all  thy  house  into  the 
ark;  for  thee  have  I  seen  righteous  before  me." 


MORE  OUTSIDE  TESTIMONY.  107 

It  would  take    several    lessons  for  me  to    bring 
out  all  the  points  on  this  subject. 

There  are  many  other  stories  in  Genesis  which 
cannot  be  explained  on  the  hypothesis  that  the 
original  of  the  book  was  written  by  one  writer. 
Take,  as  an  illustration,  the  two  stories  concern- 
ing Beer-sheba  and  its  origin.  They  do  not  agree 
in  any  particular.  The  first  story  was  written 
by  an  Elohist,  the  second  by  a  Yahwehist. 

In  Gen.  xxi.  a  covenant  was  made  between 
Abraham  and  Abimelech.  Verses  31,  32,  records 
the  matter  as  follows: 

"Wherefore  he  called  the  place  Beer-sheba;  because 
there  they  swarc,  both  of  them.  Thus  they  made  a 
covenant  at  Beer-sheba;  and  then  Abimelech  rose  up, 
and  Pichol  the  chief  captain  of  his  host,  and  they  re- 
turned into  the  land  of  the  Philistines." 

Now  turn  to  chapter  xxvi,  and  notice  the  Je- 
hovah document.  There  is  another  Abimelech 
who  takes  Isaac's  wife,  as  the  former  Abimelech 
took  the  wife  of  Isaac's  father.  Strange  to  say^ 
Isaac  denies  his  wife  as  his  father  had  done.  As 
his  father  had  done  again,  he  calls  his  wife  his 
sister. 

By  and  bye  matters  between  Isaac  and  Abime- 
lech were  settled,  as  was  the  case  with  Abraham 
and  Abimelech;  then  comes  that  same  old  disturb- 
ance about  the  well;  finally  in  verses  32,  33,  it 
terminates  as  follows: 

"And  it  came  to  pass  the  same  day,  that  Isaac's 
servants  came,  and  told  him  concerning  the  well  which 
they  had  digged,   and  said  unto  him,   we  have  found 


108     THE   BIBLE  AND   THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

water.  And  he  called  it  Sheba;  therefore  the  name  of 
the  city  is  Beer-sheba  unto  this  day." 

This  must  suffice  on  this  point.  Before  enter- 
ing upon  the  direct  argument  permit  me  to  make 
one  more  quotation  from  Rev.  R.  Heber  Newton. 
In  ^* Right  and  Wrong  Uses  of  the  Bible,"  pages 
22,  23,  he  says: 

"The  Old  Testament  historians  contradict  each  oth- 
er in  facts  and  figures,  tell  the  same  story  in  different 
ways,  locate  the  incident  at  different  periods,  ascribe 
the  same  deeds  to  different  men,  quote  statistics  which 
are  plainly  exaggerated,  mistake  poetic  legends  for 
sober  prose,  report  the  marvelous  tales  of  tradition  as 
literal  history,  and  give  us  statements  which  cannot 
be  read  as  scientific  facts  without  denying  our  latest 
and  most  scientific  knowledge.  I  shall  not  enumerate 
these  mistakes  of  Moses,  and  others.  That  is  an  un- 
gracious task  for  which  I  have  no  heart.  It  may  be 
needful  to  remind  the  children  of  a  larger  growth,  who 
persist  in  believing  a  saintly  mother's  belief  to  be  final 
authority  in  their  studies,  that  she  is  not  infallible. 
But  one  does  not  care  to  catalogue  her  mistalvcs  and 
taunt  her  with  them."  " 

I  have  indicated  that  the  story,  or  rather  the 
stories,  of  creation  was  an  old  Assyrian  fable, 
probably  a  poem.  The  evidences  on  this  point 
are  too  numerous  for  me  to  even  refer  to  many 
of  them.  I  will  make  an  extract  from  Thomas 
El  wood  Longshore  the  Quaker  Liberal.  On  page 
11,  of  his  book,  ''Higher  Criticism  in  Theology 
and  Religion,"  he  says: 

"The  story  of  creation  we  know  is  but  a  fable  of 
Sanscrit  origin.  There  is  no  other  authority  or  foun- 
dation for  it.    The  Pentateuch,  or  five  books  fo  Moses, 


MORE  OUTSIDE  TESTIMONY.  109 

is  but  a  compilation  of  Legends  loosely  and  awkward- 
ly put  together,  with  enough  of  pretended  history  to 
connect  the  different  stories,  legends  and  laws  to  pass 
among  the  uncritical,  the  ignorant  and  credulous,  who 
are  blinded  to  the  absurdities,  the  contradictions,  and 
the  incoherencies,  through  a  reverence  for  the  super- 
natural and  impossible  that  forbids  them  to  think,  to 
question  or  to  doubt.  From  the  time  these  books 
were  prepared  to  the  present  hour  they  have  been  used 
and  accepted  as  a  faith  and  as  a  guide  for  the  ignorant 
believer," 

The  eccentric  but -really  learned  Rev.  Robert 
Taylor  said: 

*'The  whole  fable  of  Moses  however,  will  be  found 
in  the  Orphic  verses  sung  in  the  Orgies  of  Bacchus,  as 
celebrated  in  S^^ria,  Asia  Minor  and  Greece  for  ages 
before  such  a  people  as  the  Jewish  Nation  were  known 
to  be  in  existence."     Diegesis,  page  25. 

When  I  quote  these  things,  and  cite  to  more  di- 
rect evidence,  as  I  shall,  please  do  not  accuse  me 
of  disputing  the  old  gentleman  after  whom  I  was 
named,  for  I  think  I  shall  convince  my  readers 
that  he  wrote  very  few,  if  any  of  the  words  in 
these  five  books,  and  that  if  he  did  write  some 
of  these  things  he  took  them  from  older  writings, 

With  two  more  quotations,  I  will  be  prepared 
CO  sift  the  internal  testimonies  of  the  five-fold 
oook.    Mr.  Sunderland  saj^s: 

"Scholars  have  been  puzzled  over  much  that  they 
^ound  in  the  Pentateuch.  Jerome,  the  one  great  bibli- 
•'al  scholar  of  the  early  church,  was.  Several  of  the 
most  learned  of  the  Protestant  reformers  of  the  six- 
teenth century'  were.     Manj^  Jewish   scholars  of  differ- 


110  THE  BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

ent  ages  have  been.  Later  Christian  scholars  have 
been  more  and  more. 

The  idea  of  the  work  being  composite— a  compila- 
tion from  earlier  documents,  which  might  be  separated 
from  each  other  was  suggested  by  Astruc,  a  disting- 
uished professor  of  medicine  in  Paris,  in  1753.  This 
has  proved  a  key  to  the  puzzle."  "Origin  and  Growth 
of  the  Bible"  p,  67. 

This  man  gives  eight  cogent  reasons  why  Mo- 
ses could  by  no  possibility  have  written  the 
Pentateuch. 

I  am  sorry  we  do  not  get  along  faster,  but  I 
prefer  to  do  the  w^ork  wnth  some  thoroughness 
rather  than  to  skim  over  the  ground. 

With  a  single  quotation  from  that  magnificent 
work  of  Rev.  John  Chadwiek,  ''The  Bible  of  To- 
day," I  will  leave  the  external  evidences,  and 
consult  those  found  in  the  Books  under  consid- 
eration.    On  pages  81,  82,  Mr.  C.  says: 

"So  few  even  of  the  most  conservative  scholars,  are, 
at  the  present  time  disposed  to  contend  for  the  Mo- 
saic authorship  of  the  Penetateuch  in  its  present  form 
that  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  within  a  few  years 
a  denial  of  this  has  been  regarded  as  a  horrible  offense 
against  the  Bible  and  religion;  and  that  in  a  majority 
of  Christian  pulpits  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch was  entertained  by  a  few  distinguished  schol- 
ars; notably  by  Jerome,  decidedly  the  scholar,  and 
almost  the  only  one  with  any  critical  perception  among 
the  fathers  of  the  church.  But  then  for  more  than  a 
thousand  years  the  Mosaic  authorship  had  full  credit. 
Late  in  the  seventeenth  century  we  find  Hobbs,  the 
English  philosopher  of  the  Restoration,  throwing  doubt 
upon  it,  and  Spinoza,   the  father   of   modern  criticism, 


MORE  OUTSIDE  TESTIMONY.  Ill 

cvijdtever  be  his  rank  as  a  piiilosopher,  was  still  more 
explicit  in  that  direction.  But  the  controversy  which 
has  been  so  protracted  and  so  violent  was  not  inau- 
gurated until  Astruc,  a  French  Ph3^sician,  in  1753,  an- 
nounced the  discover3^  of  two  parallel  documents  in 
Cenesis,  characterized  by  different  designations  of  the 
Deity.  This  discovery  was  at  once  allowed  by  various 
critacs,  but  strenuously  denied  by  otbers.  Little  by 
little  the  fragmentarv  composition  of  the  Pentateuch 
gained  ground,  un;til  now  it  would  be  difficult  to  finr' 
a  scholar  of  even  respectable  ability  who  would  not 
concede  that  if  the  bulk  of  the  Pentateuch  came  orig- 
inally^ from  the  hand  of  Moses  this  bulk  has  been  sinc*» 
his  time  subject  to  much  alteration  and  enlargement. 
The  existence  of  the  ditferent  documents  is  almost  uni- 
versally admitted,  and  when  it  is  denied,  the  denial  i*^ 
supported  with  such  elaboia'ie  ingenuity  as  is  its  owr 
sufficient  refutation. 

I  have  not  given  all  these  quotations  becans^j 
I  wanted  to  over-load  this  department  of  the  sub- 
ject with  quotations  from  great  men  who  have 
been  led  to  see  the  ■'■ru^h  on  the  origin  of  these 
books;  but  because,  ^  want  the  world  to  see  that 
its  great  theologians  are  thinking  on  these  lines. 
The  books  themselves  contain  all  the  proof  need- 
ed that  were  not  waatten  for  many  hundred 
years  after  Moses  had  gone  to  join  his  fathers. 


CHAPTER   YI. 

GENESIS  TO  JOSHUA. 

Isles  of  the  Gentiles — No  Gentiles  until  the  Rebellion  of  the 
Jews  under  Jeroboafn — Canaanites  in  the  Land — Where 
Abraham  pursued  his  Enemies — Before  there  reined  any 
King  in  Israel-— "Unto  this  Day" — What  Josephus  thought 
of  Exodus — Two  sets  of  Ten  Commandments — Who  said 
Moses  was  Great? — Could  Moses  have  written  Exodus 
xvi.  35 — Leviticus  xviii  written  after  the  Nations  w^ere 
Spued  Out — Leviticus  xx  written  after  Babylonish  Cap- 
tivity— How  Meek  was  Moses? — Deuteronomy  the  Sec- 
ond Law — Extract  from  Mr.  Chadwick — Solomon's 
Shortcomings  Depicted  by  the  Deuteronomist— A  King 
Demanded— Samuel  Astonished— Yahweh  Surprised— Did 
Moses  write  the  Account  of  his  own  Death? — Ancient 
Land  Marks— Deuteronomy  Compares  Moses  with  his 
Successors— Book  of  the  Wars  of  the  L©rd— Opinion  on 
Origin  of  Pentateuch. 

If  the  reader  has  feithfully  followed  the  argu- 
ment thus  far  he  is  prepared  to  go  into  a  more 
minute  examination  of  the  five  books  Moses  has 
been  supposed  to  have  written.  We  will  begin 
with  Genesis  and  end  with  Deuteronomy. 

I  will  not  give  all  the  evidence  found  in  these 
books,    but    will   present   enough    to    make    the 


GENESIS  TO  JOSHUA.  113 

critical  student  positively  sure  that  an  inside 
criticism  will,  in  Moses'  case,  prove  an  alihi. 

In  Gen.  x.  5,  the  author  sa^^s: 

"By  these  were  the  isles  of  the  Gentiles  divided  in 
their  lands;  every  one  after  his  tongue;  after  their 
families  and  nations." 

Now  there  can  be  no  Gentiles  until  after  the 
Jews  became  a  nation,  and  this  was  not  until 
in  the  time  of  Rehoboam,  the  son  of  Solomon. 
Tehoboam  was  the  fourth  king  of  Israel;  it  was 
in  his  day  that  Israel  split  off  from  Judah,  and 
set  up  an  independent  kingdom.  Indeed,  with 
the  exception  of  Judges  iv.  2,  the  word  Gentiles 
does  not  occur  again  until  in  Isaiah  xi.  10,  and 
the  text  in  Judges  was  not  written  until  after 
the  writings  of  the  first  part  of  Isaiah. 

At  the  time  these  lands  were  said  to  have  been 
divided  among  the  Gentiles,  the  world  had  not 
advanced  within  to  three  generations  of  the  birth 
of  Judah,  and  Judah  did  not  become  a  distinct 
nation  until  Israel  rebelled  under  Jeroboam. 
Webster  says  the  term  Gentiles  applies  at  large 
to  the  nations  as  disting'tiished  from  the  Jev.^s. 
Nations  could  not  be  distinguished  from  the 
Jews  until  there  was  a  Jewish  Nation.  Alexan- 
der Cruden  defines  Gentiles  to  be  those  who  do 
not  accept  the  Jewish  Religion.  The  Jews  had 
no  distinctive  religion  until  long  after  the  days 
of  Solomon.  Until  the  tribe  of  Levi  rebelled  un- 
der Solomon's  son  Rehoboam  the  Levites  had 
entire  control  of  all  religious  matters.  After 
Israel  went  northward  into  Samaria,   and  took 


114     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

the  Levites  with  them  the  Jews  were  compelled 
to  get  along  without  the  Levitical  priesthood. 
Then  they  inaugurated  a  religious  S3^stem  of 
their  own.  This  is  enough;  it  shows  that  there 
could  have  been  no  Gentiles  at  the  time  this  text 
tells  of  what  occurred  before  *' these  isles  of  the 
Gentiles  were  divided."  This  is  what  is  called 
an  anachronism.  Moses  could  no  more  have 
written  it  than  he  could  have  written  about  the 
Mississippi  River  Steamers. 

Gen.  xii.  6,  tells  us  that  ''the  Canaanite  was 
then  in  the  land."  xiii.  7  adds,  "And  the  Can- 
aanite and  the  Perizzites  dwelled  then  in  the  land." 
These  texts  are  supposed  to  apply  to  Abraham's 
earliest  da^^s.  Th2  work  of  expelling  the  Can- 
aanites  did  not  begin  until  in  the  days  of  Joshua, 
not  much  less  than  five  hundred  years  after  Ab- 
raham; and  did  not  end  until  in  the  daj^s  of  David 
•eight  hundred  years  after  Abraham.  As  this 
text  could  not  have  been  written  while  the  Can- 
aanite was  3'et  in  the  land,  its  writing  must 
date  at  least  four  hundred  and  fifty  j^ears  after 
Moses.  It  is  much  easier  to  ascertain  who  did 
not  write  such  texts  as  have  been  considered 
than  it  will  be  to  find  who  did  write  them. 
There  are  many  other  things  in  this  book  that 
it  is  positively  certain  Moses  did  not  write. 

In  Gen.  xiv.  14,  we  read  that: 

*'When  Abraham  heard  that  his  brother  was  taken 
captive,  he  armed  his  trained  servants,  born  in  his 
house,  three  hundred  and  eighteen,  and  pursued  them 
unto  Dan  " 


GENESIS    TO  JOSHUA.  115 

This  was  not  true;  nor  could  it  have  been 
written  by  Moses.  Abraham  did  not  pursue  his 
enemies  to  a  city  which  had  no  existence;  nor  could 
Moses  have  written  of  a  city  which  was  not 
founded  for  more  than  a  century  after  he  left 
the  world.  Dan  was  Jacob's  son.  Jacob  was  Abra- 
ham's grandson;  Dan's  great-great-grand-children 
became  a  tribe,  one  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 
This  tribe  went  to  a  certain  city  in  the  land  of 
Canaan — a  city  by  the  name  of  Laish,  and  des- 
troyed it;  afterwards  they  rebuilded  it  and 
changed  its  name  to  Dan,  which  was  the  name 
of  their  tribe.  The  history  of  this  transaction 
will  be   found  in  Judges  xviii.  25-30. 

There  we  read  of  a  quiet  people  who  lived  in 
a  city  by  the  name  of  Laish,  and  that  the  chil- 
dren of  Dan  w^ent  there  and  smote  the  inhabi- 
tants with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  burned  the 
city  with  fire.  On  the  ruins  of  that  old  city 
they  builded  a  new  one.  Verses  29,  says: 

"And  they  called  the  name  of  the  city  Dan,  after 
the  name  of  Dan,  their  father,  who  was  born  unto 
Israel;  howbeit,  the  name  of  the  city  was  Laish  at 
the  first." 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  city  of  Dan  was  build- 
ed about  four  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  Abra- 
ham had  conquered  his  enemies  within  its  bor- 
ders. Do  you  say  this  may  have  been.  True, 
but  how  does  Moses  happen  to  caU  it  Dan,  so 
many  years  before  anyone  ever  thought  of  build- 
ing such  a  city  on  the  ruins  of  which,  in  Moses^ 
da3^  must  have  been  in  the  height  of  its  pros- 


116     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

perity?        Remember  there   was   a  city  there  ?ct 
that  time,  but  it  was  not  Dan,  it  was  Laish. 

Gen.  XXX vi.  31,  says:  "And  these  are  the  kings 
that  reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom  before  there 
reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of  Israel." 
This  is  surely  another  evidence  that  Moses  was 
not  the  author  of  this  book.  This  text  could 
not  have  been  written  until  after  Saul  \Nras  king 
of  Israel,  which  was  not  until  near  a  half  a  mil- 
lennium after  Moses'  death.  Indeed  the  phrase, 
'•before  there  reigned  any  king  over  the  Children 
of  Israel,"  leaves  the  reader  to  infer  that  several 
kings  had  reigned  over  Israel  before  this  had  been 
written  If  only  Saul  had  been  king  at  the  time 
-of  the  writing  of  this,  the  text  would  have  called 
him  by  name  instead  of  speaking  of  "any  king 
reigned  over  Israel." 

I  purposely  skipped  Gen.  xxxv.  20,  because  it 
fits  in  a  little  better  with  the  next  evidence  to 
be  used  in  considering  the  date  of  this  book. 
The  previous  verse  tells  of  the  death  of  Rachel, 
the  younger  wife  of  Jacob;  then  this  verse  adds: 
■*'And  Jacob  set  a  pillar  upon  her  grave;  that  is 
the  pillar   of  Rachel's  grave  unto  this  day." 

This  expression  seems  to  indicate  quite  a  lapse 
of  time  between  the  time  of  the  event  and  the 
time  of  writing — the  writer  could  not  have  writ- 
ten "unto  this  day,"  if  he  had  been  writing  from 
materials  gathered  only  a  few  days  afterwards. 
Moses,  be  it  remembered,  knew  nothing  of  this 
matter.  He  never,  in  his  life  saw  Rachel's  tomb 
and  could  not  know    that    it  was  standing  at 


GENESIS  TO  JOSHUA.  117 

that  time.  Until  his  dying  day  he  was  never 
permitted  to  ascend  the  mountain  where  he 
could  look  over,  and  get  a  glimpse  of  even  the 
country  in  which  Rachel  was  buried.  See  Deut. 
xxxii.  48-50. 

With  one  more  quotation  we  will  leave  this,, 
the  supposed  First  Book  of  Moses.  Gen.  xlvii. 
26,  reads  as  follows: 

"And  Joseph  made  it  a  law  over  the  land  of  Eg_vpt, 
unto  this  day,  that  Pharaoh  should  have  the  fifth 
part;  except  the  laud  of  the  priest's  only,  which  be- 
came not  Pharaoh's." 

The  writer  of  this  was  later  than  either  Joseph 
or  Moses,  otherwise  he  could  not  have  referred 
to  this  as  an  ancient  law. 

Tht  thoughts  here  presented  are  not  new:  for 
nearly  a  century  the  world  has  abused  Thomas 
Fame  for  presenting  them.  Bishop  Colenso  was 
persecuted  and  driven  out  of  his  position  in  the 
Episcopal  Church  for  presenting  them.  Twelve 
centuries  before  Colenso  s  amc,  St.  Jerome,  the 
only  rea%  learned  Theologian  among  the  Latin 
Fathers,  held  the  same  opinions. 

For  some  reason  Josephus,  the  Jewish  priest 
and  historian  regarded  these  books  as  a  kind  of 
daily  journal  kept  by  Moses,  as  a  secretary  of 
a  Society  would  keep  Che  minutes  of  daily  occur- 
rences, and,  to  this  da\^  man^-  Christians  follow 
in  his  tracks,  and  accuse  all  who  do  not  ignore 
all  the  evidence  to  the  contrary,  and  fall  into 
their  ways  of  thinking,  of  being  Infidels.  Thanks 
to  the  progressive  spirit  of  the  age,  the  day  ha& 


118     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

passed  when  by  such  odium  theologium  the  spirit 
of  investigation  can  be  crushed.  I  have  already- 
asserted,  and  I  think  proved,  that  the  book  of 
Genesis  had  at  least  two  authors,  one  an  Elo- 
hist,  and  the  other  a  Jehovist — that  Moses  was 
neither  of  them  is  now  believed  by  about  all 
who  have  given  the  matter  attention  enough 
to  make  their  opinions  of  enough  value  to  at- 
tract attention. 

EXODUS. 

I  shall  pass  lightly  over  the  book  of  Exodus. 
I  would  briefly  premise,  however,  that  like  Gen- 
esis, it  had  more  than  one  author.  People,  in- 
cluding ministers,  have  looked  at  me  in  blank 
astonishment  when  I  have  asserted  that  there 
are  two  sets  of  Ten  Commandments,  which 
could  not  both  come  from  the  same  author. 
There  are  tautoligies  and  repetitions  that  I  will 
not  now  take  time  to  repeat. 

In  Ex.  XX.  3-17,  are  the  Ten  Commandments 
as  spoken  b3^  Yahweh,  on  Mount  Sanai;  in  chap- 
ter xxxiv.  Moses  is  told  to  prepare  slates  or 
tables  of  stone,  and  come  up  to  the  mount 
where  God  was  and  while  he  was  there,  and 
the^'  were  holding  a  private  seance,  God  would 
write  upon  the  two  tablets  the  words  on  thfi 
broken  tables.  As  this  thought  is  new^  to  man3', 
and  may  be  disputed  oy  a  few  who  have  not 
read  up  on  the  question,  I  will  copy  verses 
1-5,   entire. 

"And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  hew  thee  two  tables 
of  stone  like  unto  the  first;  and  I  will  w^rite  upon  these 


GENESIS  TO  JOSHUA.  119 

taoies  the  words  thai  were  ia  the  lirst  tables  which 
thou  breakest.  And  be  readv  in  the  morning,  and  come 
up  in  the  morning  unto  Mount  Sinai;  present  th_\ self 
there  to  me  in  the  top  of  the  mount.  And  no  man  shall 
come  up  there  with  thee,  neither  let  any  man  be  seen 
throughout  all  the  mount;  neither  let  the  iiocks  and 
herds  feed  before  the  mount.  And  he  hewed  the  two 
tables  of  stone  like  unto  the  first  and  Moses  rose  up 
early  in  the  morning,  and  went  up  into  Mount  Sinai, 
as  the  Lord  had  comnT  nded  him,  and  took  in  his 
land  two  tables  of  stone,  and  the  Lord  descended  in 
the  cloud,  and  stood  with  him  there  and  proclaimed 
the  name  of  the  Lord." 

Here  Moses  was  told  that  the  words  which 
were  on  the  former  stones  were  to  be  re-written. 
As  it  is  presumed  that  most  of  my  readers  under- 
stand the  Ten  Commandments  as  given  in  the 
twentieth  chapter  of  Exodus  I  will  not  here  repro- 
duce them;  but  I  will  separate  them  one  fron> 
another  and  reproduce  them  as  found  in  Ex. 
xxxiv.  beginning  with  verse  17,  and  endmg  with 
verse  26.    They  read  as  loUows; 

I 

Thou  shalt  make  thee  no  molton  Gods. 

II 
The  feast  of  unleavened  bread  shalt  thou  keep. 
Seven  days  thou  shalt  eat  unleavened  bread,  as 
I  commanded  thee,  in  the  time  of  the  month 
Abib;  for  in  the  month  Abib  thou  camest  out 
from  Egypt. 

Ill 
All  that  openeth  the  matrix  is  mine;  and  every 


120     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

firstling  among  the  cattle  whether  ox  or  sheep, 
that  is  a  male.  But  the  firstling  of  an  ass  thou 
shalt  redeem  with  a  lamb;  and  if  thou  redeem 
him  not,  then  shalt  thou  break  his  neck.  All  the 
first  bom  of  thy  sons  thou  shalt  redeem,  and 
none  shall  appear  before  me  empty. 

IV 
Six  days  thou  shalt  work,  but  on  the  seventh 
day  thou  shalt  rest;  in  earing  time  and  in  bar- 
vest  thou  shalt  rest. 

Y 
Thou  shalt  observe  the  feast  of  weeks,  of  the 
firstfruits    of  wheat    harvest,    and    the  feast  of 
ingathering  at  the  year's  end. 

YI 
Thrice  in  the  year  shall  all  your  menchildren 
appear  before  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel,  for  I 
will  cast  out  the  nations  before  thee,  and  enlarge 
thy  borders. 

VII 
Neither  shall  any  man  desire  thy  land,   when 
thou  shalt  go   up    to    appear    before    the    Lord 
thrice  in  the  year. 

VIII  .    ^ 

Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my^^'^OTnce 
with  leaven;  neither  shall  the  sacritics  of  the  feast 
of  the  passover  be  left  unto  the  morning. 

IX 
The  first  of  the   firstfruits    of  the   land  shalt 
thou  bring  into  the  house  of  the  Lord  thy  God. 


GENESIS  TO  JOSHUA.  121 

X 

Thou  shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  his  mother's 
milk. 

Here  the  first  Commandment  as  stated  in  Ex- 
odus XX.  is  left  out.  In  its  stead  we  simph- 
have  one  forbidding,  the  worship  of  molten 
images.  This  is  more  like  the  second  Com- 
mandment in  chapter  xx.  than  it  is  like  the  first. 

The  second  Coiumandment  makes  the  feast  of 
unleavened  bread  ver\'  important.  There  was 
nothing  of  that  in  the  Commandments  as  spok- 
en on  Mount  Sinai. 

The  third  Commandment,  about  taking  the 
name  of  Yahweh,  3'our  God,  in  vain  is  not  found 
in  this  decalogue.  Apparenth'  if  one  offers  the 
firstfruits  of  his  flock  to  the  Lord,  his  God,  there 
is  little  harm  in  taking  his  name  in  vain. 

The  fourth  Commandment  recognizes  the  same 
sabbath  as  that  in  Exodus  xx. 

The  fifth  Commandment  instead  of  telling 
children  to  honor  their  parents  urges  them  to 
observe  certain  annual  feasts. 

The  sixth  is  an  especial  Commandment  to 
menchildren. 

The  seventh  Commandment  forbids  an^-one 
coveting  the  lands  of  those  who,  to  use  a  mod- 
ern phrase,  attend  church. 

The  eighth  relates  to  sacrifices. 

The  ninth  commands  them  to  bring  the  first- 
fruits  of  the  land  as  an  ofi"ering  to  the  Lord. 

The  tenth  forbids  seething  a  kid  in  its  moth- 
er's milk. 


122     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

To  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  that  these 
are  the  original  Ten  Commandments,  after  giv- 
ing them  as  above  God  said  to  Moses,  ''Write 
thou  these  words;  for  after  the  tenor  of  these 
words  I  have  made  a  covenant  with  thee  and 
with  Israel."  Then  is  added:  ''And  he  was  there 
with  the  Lord  forty  days  and  forty  nights;  he 
did  neither  eat  bread  nor  drink  water.  And 
he  wrote  upon  the  tables  the  v^ords  of  the  cov- 
enant, the  Ten  Commandments."    Verses  27,  28. 

Moses,  if  he  really  was  a  great  man  would 
hardly  write,  as  he  is  represented  as  doing,  in 
Ex.  xi.  3,  "Moreover  the  man  Moses  was  very 
great  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  the  sight  of  all 
the  people." 

Again  in  Ex.  xvi.  35,  the  writer  says: 

"And  the  children  of  Israel  did  eat  manna  forty 
years,  until  they  came  to  a  land  inhabited;  they  did 
eat  manna  until  they  came  unto  the  borders  of  the 
Land  of  Canaan." 

As  Moses  did  not  live  until  they  reached  Ca- 
naan, it  is  hardly  probable  that  he  wrote  that 
sentence.  In  fact  all  the  testimony  is,  that  these 
books  are  pieces  of  after-writing. 

We  "vsrill  next  briefly  examine  the  book  of 
LEVITICUS. 

In  chapter  xviii.  26-28  it  is  written: 

"Ye  shall  therefore  keep  my  statutes  and  my  judg- 
ments, and  shall  not  commit  any  of  these  abominations; 
neither  any  of  your  nation,  nor  any  stranger  that  so- 
journeth  among  you;  for  all  these  abominations  have 
the  men  of  the  land  done,  which  were  before  you,  and 


GENESIS  TO  JOSHUA.  123 

the  land  is  defiled;  that  the  land  spue  not  you  out  al- 
so when  ye  defile  it,  as  it  spued  out  the  nations  which 
were  before  you." 

This  was  certainlj^  written  by  some  one  who 
was  in  the  land,  and  had  seen  the  nations  spued 
out  before  the  Children  of  Israel;  Moses  never 
had  seenthe  land,  nor  had  any  one  to  whom  he 
spoke,  or  for  whom  he  wrote  this  text.  In 
fact  the  nations  were  not  driven  out  of  the  land 
until  in  the  da3's  of  David;  this,  therefore,  coukl 
not  have  been  written  before  that  period.  As 
the  Hebrews  were  spued  out  so  soon  after  David's 
day,  it  seems  that  tliQj  were  not  much  different 
from  their  naughty  predecessors. 

Lev.  xxvi.  33-35,  sa^^s: 

"I  will  scatter  you  among  the  heathen,  and  will 
draw  out  a  sword  after  you;  and  your  land  shall  be 
desolate,  and  your  cities  waste.  Then  shall  the  land 
enjoy  her  sabbaths,  as  long  as  it  lieth  desolate,  and  j-e 
be  in  your  enemies'  land;  even  then  shall  the  land  rest 
and  enjo3-  her  sabbaths.  As  long  as  it  lieth  desolate 
it  shall  rest;  because  it  did  not  rest  in  your  sabbaths 
when  ye  dwelt  upon  it." 

It  must  be  evident  to  any  one  who  carefully 
reads  from  veidc  28,  to,  and  including  verse  44, 
that  this  was  written  after  the  Babylonian  cap- 
tivity. It  describes  a  state  of  affairs  when  "the 
land  enjo3'ed  her  sabbaths,"  as  "it  did  not  rest 
when  jQ  dwelt  upon  it."  This  could  by  no  pos- 
sibility have  been  written  in  the  wilderness;  in 
fact  it  could  not  have  been  written  until  after 
the  land  was  in  the  enjoj^ment  of  that  rest 
which  they  refused  it  when  they  dwelt  upon  it. 


124     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

At  the  expense  of  leaving  other  important 
matters  out  I  must  quote  verses  43,  44. 

''The  land  also  shall  be  left  of  them;  and  shall  enjoy 
her  sabbaths  while  she  lieth  desolate  without  them,  and 
they  shall  accept  of  the  punishment  of  their  iniquity; 
because,  even  because  they  despised  my  judgments  and 
because  their  soul  abhorred  my  statutes.  And  yet,  for 
all  that,  when  they  be  in  the  laud  of  their  enemies  I 
will  not  cast  them  away,  neither  will  I  abhor  them, 
to  destroy  them  utterly,  and  to  break  my  covenant 
with  them;  for  I  am  the  Lord  their  God." 

How  easily  this  could  have  been  written  after 
the  Babylonish  captivity — after  they  had  returned 
to  their  own  land;  how  natural  it  would  be  for 
the  belief  that  their  violations  of  the  sabbath 
caused  their  dispersion,  and  as  a  result  caused 
such  texts  to  be  written.  How  utterly  impossi- 
ble it  was  that  Moses  should  have  written  these 
words. 

NUMBERS. 

The  book  of  Numbers  is  not  without  evidence 
that  Moses  was  not  its  author.  A  single  quo- 
tation is  sufficient  for  the  present.  Num.  xii.  S, 
says: 

**Now  the  man  Moses  was  very  meek,  above  all 
men  that  were  upon  the  face  of  the  earth." 

It  is  just  possible  that  Moses  may  have  been 
a  very  meek  man;  but  if  he  was  he  did  not 
write  that.  It  is  not  a  mark  of  excessive  meek- 
ness to  publish  such  a  thing  in  one's  own  book. 
Especially  is  it  bad  taste  to  claim  to  be  the 
meekest  man  on  the  face  of  the  earth  when  he 
did  not  know  one  person  in  a  thousiand  of  the 


GF.NRSIS  TO  JOSHUA.  125 

people  who  were  on  the  earth.  Any  person 
writing  such  a  thing  about  himself  today  would 
be  put  dowm  as  a  braggart.  The  only  way  to 
let  Moses  out  of  this  is  to  deny  that  he  wrote 
this  sentence.  But  the  evidence  that  he  wrote 
this  is  as  conclusive  as  the  evidence  that  he 
wrote  anything  in  this  book;  that  is,  there  is 
just  none  at  all. 

We  will  now  go  into  something  of  an  extended 
examination  of  the  fifth  of  this  series  of  books, 
DEUTERONOMY. 

This  is  not  an  original  book;  indeed  the  word 
itself  implies  as  much.  It  comes  from  two  Greek 
words;  deuteros,  v^hich  means  second,  and 
nomos,  which  means  law^.  It  means  second  law^, 
or  rather,  second  giving  of  the  law.  The  law 
was  embodied  in  three  of  the  former  books. 

This  book  claims  to  be  more  particularly  a 
report  of  what  may  be  claimed  as  Moses'  dying 
speech,  in  w^hich  the  law^  was  rehearsed  to  Is- 
rael. This  speech,  or  rather  these  speeches,  were 
the  invention  of  a  later  writer,  intended  to  fas- 
ten on  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  drill  into 
their  lives  the  system  of  ceremonies  which  had 
been  shaping  itself  among  them  for  several  cen- 
turies. 

The  temptation  is  great  to  here  quote  sev- 
eral pages  from  Rev.  John  W.  Chadwick.  I  will 
greatly  abridge  in  quoting.  I  would  here  recom- 
mend every  reader  to  procure  his  work,  "The 
Bible  of  Today,"  and  study  it.  On  pp.  103-106 
he  savs: 


126      THE    I5IBLE   AXI)   THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

"The  book  of  Deuteronomy  was  much  more  of  a  man- 
ufacturer than  any  previous  portion  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Here  calculation  takes  the  place  of  spontaneity.  The 
Yahwehist,  and  elder  Elohist  had  unconsciously  allow- 
ed their  predilections  to  determine  their  interpretations 
of  the  past,  but  the  Deuteronomist  went  about  to  in- 
vent a  great  historic  fiction.  He  knew  what  he  want- 
ed; namely,  to  abolish  all  idolatrous  worship  of  Yah- 
weh,  all  worship  of  all  other  gods;  and,  as  a  means 
to  these  ends,  to  confine  the  worship  of  Yahweh  to 
Jerusalem.  His  book  was  written  to  enforce  these 
ideas,  with  the  sanction  of  the  greatest  name  in  He- 
brew History,  The  writer  was  tremendously  in  earnest; 
his  hatred  of  the  false  gods  and  the  image  worship  of 
Yahweh  was  immense;  but  at  the  same  time  he  was 
an  artist,  and  had  an  eye  to  dramatic  effect.  Choos- 
ing Moses  as  his  mouth-piece,  he  presents  him  as  call- 
ing the  people  together,  in  the  fortieth  year  of  their 
wanderings  in  the  wilderness,  to  refresh  their  memory 
of  the  law,  which  had  been  previously  revealed  to  them. 
Sternly  commanding  to  serve  no  other  gods  but  Yah- 
weh, he  adjures  them  to  utterly  exterminate  the  Ca- 
naanites  when  they  have  come  into  their  land.  Rehears- 
ing the  'ten  words,'  he  makes  the  'word'  forbidding 
any  images  of  Yahweh,  much  more  explicit  than  it  was 
before.  But  he  is  still  more  emphatic  in  his  prohibition 
of  the  worship  of  Yahweh  at  the  various  altars  here 
and  there  throughout  the  country.  He  must  be  wor- 
shipped nowhere  but  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem.  And 
as  there  can  be  but  one  proper  place  of  worship, 
so  there  can  be  but  one  proper  tribe  of  priests,  and 
this  the  tribe  of  Levi.  The  Levites  who  minister  in 
the  Temple  have  fixed  dues  assigned  them,  those  vScat- 
tered  about  the  country  are  commended  to  the  charity 
of  the  people.    *  *  *  If   I  had  time  to  take  up  different 


GENESIS  TO  JCSHUA.  127 

portions  of  this  wonderful  composition,  point  after 
point,  1  could,  I  think,  convince  even  the  most  skepti- 
cal that  Moses  was  entirely  innocent  of  all  complicity-- 
in  its  publication,  that  it  was  the  work  of  a  religious 
reformer  in  the  time  of  King  Josiah,  and  is  written  to 
correct  the  abuses,  and  to  fix  the  formal  worship  of 
that  time.  The  state  of  things  it  presupposes  is  al- 
ways the  state  of  things  existent  in  Josiah's  reign. 
The  command  to  utterly  exterminate  the  Canaanites 
was  only  written  with  the  view  of  making  the  wor- 
shipper of  Yahweh  intolerant  of  all  Canaanitish  prac- 
tices. The  Canaanites  were  not  so  exterminated.  The 
representation  to  this  eftect  in  the  first  dozen  chapters 
of  Joshua  is  the  Deuteronomist's  ow^n  fulfillment  of  his 
own  imaginary  command.  The  Book  of  Judges,  which 
is  much  more  trustworthy  on  these  points,  gives  an 
entirely  different  impression.  The  image  worship  of 
Yahweh  had  been  customary  for  hundreds  of  years  at 
the  time  when  Deuteronomy  appeared,  and  the  first 
feeling  of  its  wrongfulness  dates,  not  from  Moses,  but 
the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  before  Christ.  So 
with  the  worship  of  Yahweh  at  various  sanctuaries. 
Not  only  was  it  customary  up  to  this  time,  but  it  is 
expressly  allowed  in  the  earlier  portions  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. So  with  the  Levitical  priesthood.  A  preference 
for  Levitical  priests  dates  back  as  far  as  Solomon, 
and  increased,  until  at  length,  we  infer  the  Deutcrono- 
mist  did  little  more  than  to  formulate  the  customs  of 
his  times.  That  Moses  expressly  commanded  an^-  such 
Levitical  function  we  have  no  particle  of  evidence. 
Prophesy  and  kingship  claim  the  Deuteronomist's  at- 
tention to  a  large  degree.  And  he  was  guided  entireljf 
by  the  phenomena  of  prophesy  and  kingship  that  were 
visible  about  him  in  the  seventh  century,  and  by  his 
knowledge  of  their  past  abuses.      His  portraiture  of 


128      THE   BIBLE   AND  THE  HIGHER  CRIT  CISM. 

what  a  king  sliould  not  be,  is  an  almost  photographic 
likeness  of  what  Solomon  really  was." 

This  language  needs  no  comment  from  me.  As 
I  have  thus  far  brought  most  of  my  evidences 
from  within  the  Bible,  I  will,  for  the  present  con- 
tinue in  that  line,  and  examine  the  book  of  Deu- 
teronomy itself. 

One  thing  I  had  intended  to  omit  from  this 
chapter,  but  as  Mr.  Chadwick's  remarks  lead  up 
to  it  I  cannot  see  how  I  can  do  my  duty  and 
leave  it  out. 

The  testimony  to  v^hich  Mr.  Chadwick  refers, 
but  does  not  quote,  is  found  in  Deut.  xvii.  14-19. 
It  reads  as  follows: 

"When  thou  art  come  into  the  land  which  the  Lord 
thy  God  giveth  thee,  and  shalt  possess  it,  and  shalt 
dwell  therein,  and  shalt  sa\^,  I  will  set  a  king  over  me, 
like  all  the  nations  round  about  me;  thou  shalt  in  any- 
wise set  him  over  thee  whom  the  Lord,  thy  God,  shall 
choose;  one  from  among  th3-  brethren  shalt  thou  set 
king  over  thee;  thou  mayest  not  set  a  stranger  over 
thee,  which  is  not  thy  brother.  But  he  shall  not  mul- 
tiply horses  unto  himself,  nor  cause  the  people  to  re- 
turn to  Egypt,  to  the  end  that  he  should  multiply 
horses;  for  as  much  as  the  Lord  hath  said  unto  you, 
ye  shall  henceforth  return  no  more  that  way.  Neither 
shall  he  multiply  wives  unto  himself,  that  his  heart 
turn  not  away;  neither  shall  he  greatly  multiply  to 
himself  silver  and  gold.  And  it  shall  be  when  he  sit- 
teth  on  the  throne  of  his  kingdom,  that  he  shall  write 
him  a  cop\'  of  this  law  in  a  book  out  of  that  which  is 
before  the  priests,  the  Levites.  And  it  shall  be  with 
him,  and  he  shall  read  therein  all  the  days  of  his  life; 
that  he  rnay  learn  to  fear  the  Lord  his  God,   and  to 


GENESIS  TO  JOSHUA.  129 

keep  all  the  words  of  this  law  and  these  statutes  to  do 
them." 

Mr.  Chadwick  thinks  this  law  a  direct  drive  at 
the  conduct  of  king  Solomon.  1  think  no  one 
can  read  the  history  of  Solomon  and  his  fort^^ 
thousand  stalls  of  horses;  his  seven  hundred 
\vives,  beside  numerous  other  women,  who  turn- 
ed his  head  and  heart  in  the  wrong  direction;  of 
his  making  gold  and  silver  as  plentiful  as  the 
stones  in  the  street;  (See  I  King.  iv.  26,  x.  26, 
and  xi.  3,  4.  Also  Psa.  xx.  7.)  without  deciding 
that  Mr.  Chadwick  is  correct.  This  then  proves 
that  Deuteronomy  xviii.  14-20,  could  not  have 
been  w^ritten  until  after  the  reign  of  King  Solo- 
mon. This  fact  is  greatly  strengthened  by  an  ex- 
amination of  the  viii.  chapter  of  I  Samuel. 
Here  the  people  are  greatly  displeased  w4th  the 
conduct  of  Samuel's  sons  w^ho  w^ere  their  judges; 
and  therefore  they  w^ent  to  Samuel  and  demand- 
ed a  king.  They  said,  "Behold,  thou  art  old, 
and  thy  sons  walk  not  in  thy  ways;  now  make 
us  a  king  to  judge  us  like  all  the  nations." 
Verse  5.  This  w^as  evidently  an  unheard  of  pro- 
position. It  astonished  the  old  medium;  this 
could  not  have  been  the  case  if  he  had  before 
him  and  was  familiar  wnth  the  ver\'  law  just 
quoted  from  Deuteronom3^  He  w^ould  have  ex- 
pected it.  More  than  that,  when  the  people 
came  to  Samuel  they  would  have  cited  him  to 
this  command  of  Moses  concerning  making  a 
king.      Samuel  listens  to  this  proposition  oi  the 


130     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

people,  and  then  in  verses  6-9  takes  it  to  Yali- 
weh.    The  matter  is  recorded  as  follows: 

"But  the  thing  displeased  Samuel,  when  they  said^ 
give  us  a  king,  to  judge  us.  And  Saniuel  prayed  unta 
the  Lord.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Samuel,  hearken 
tmto  the  voice  of  the  people  in  all  that  they  say  unto 
thee;  for  they  have  not  rejected  thee,  but  they  have 
rejected  me,  that  I  should  not  reign  over  them.  Ac- 
cording to  all  the  works  that  they  have  done  since 
the  day  that  I  brought  them  out  of  Egypt  even  unto 
this  day,  wherewith  they  have  forsaken  me,  and 
served  other  gods,  so  do  they  also  unto  thee.  Now 
therefore  hearken  unto  their  voice;  howbeit,  yet  pro- 
test solemnly  unto  them,  and  show  them  the  manner 
of  the  king  that  shall  reign  over  them.  And  Samuel 
told  all  the  words  of  the  Lord  to  the  people  that 
asked  of  him  a  king." 

Still  the  people  demanded  a  king.  Samuel  acted 
as  a  go-between  the  people  and  the  Lord.-  Sam- 
uel heard  all  the  words  of  the  people  and  pre- 
sented them  in  the  ears  of  the  Lord.  ''And  the 
Lord  said  to  Samuel,  make  them  a  king." 

This  was  evidently  the  first  Yahweh  ever 
thought  of  such  a  thing  as  any  one  beside  him- 
self being  king  of  Israel.  So  he  knew  nothing 
of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  at  so  late  a  date 
as  in  the  days  of  Samuel. 

In  Deut.  iii.  27,  28,  Moses  is  informed  that  he 
shall  not  go  over  Jordan  into  the  Land  of  Ca- 
naan, yet  we  read  in  Lev.  xxvi.  34,  35,  of  the 
terrible  curses  that  came  on  the  land  because 
they  — the  Hebrews —  did  not  permit  the  land  to 
keep  its  sabbaths.     In  connection  with  these  two 


GENESIS  TO  JOSHUA.  131 

texts  it  may  be  well  to  quote  Deut.  xxxiv.  4-8. 

"And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  this  is  the  land 
which  I  sware  unto  Abrahnm,  unto  Isaac,  and  unto 
Jacob,  saying,  I  will  give  it  unto  thy  seed;  I  have 
caused  thee  to  see  it  with  thine  eyes,  but  thou  shalt 
not  go  over  thither.  So  Moses,  the  servant  of  the 
Lord,  died  there  in  the  land  of  Moab,  according  to  the 
word  of  the  Lord.  And  he  buried  him  ii:  the  valley 
in  the  land  of  Moab,  over  agaliist  Beth-peor;  but  no 
man  knoweth  his  sepulchre  unto  this  day.  And  Moses 
was  an  hundred  and  twenty  ^^ears  old  when  he  died; 
his  eye  was  not  dim;  nor  his  natural  force  abated. 
And  the  children  of  Israel  wept  for  Moses  in  the  plains 
of  Moab  thirty  da3's;  so  the  days  of  weeping  and 
mourning  for  Moses  were  ended.  And  Joshua,  the 
son  of  Nun,  was  full  of  the  spirit  of  wisdom;  for 
Moses  had  laid  his  hands  upon  him;  and  the  children 
of  Israel  hearkened  unto  him  and  did  as  the  Lord 
commanded  Moses." 

Here  Moses  went  up  to  view  the  land,  as  he 
was  told  to  do  in  chapter  iii.  After  the  land 
was  shown  him  he  was  again  informed  that  he 
could  not  enter  the  land.  Then  follows  the  ac- 
count of  his  death  and  burial,  the  tliirt3^  da^'S 
mourning  for  him,  and  the  fact  that  "No  man 
knoweth  his  sepulchre  unto  this  da3\" 

Now  I  am  led  to  ask,  did  Moses  write  all 
this?  If  so,  the  Bible  contains  one  more 
argument  for  Spiritualism  than  I  had  sus- 
pected. "No  man  knoweth  his  sepulchre  imto 
this  day,"  leads  one  to  suppose  that  this  must 
have  been  written  not  by  Moses  b::-ore  his 
death,  but  by  some  other  person  hundreds  of 
years  after. 


132     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Deut.  xiA.  ^f  was  evidently  written  for  those 
who  had  long  Hved  in  the  country.    It  says: 

"Thou  shalt  not  remove  thy  neighbor's  landmark^ 
which  they  of  old  time  have  set  in  thine  inheritance, 
Evhich  thou  shalt  inherit  in  the  land  that  the  Lord 
thy  God  giveth  thee  to  possess  it." 

I  would  like  to  inquire  how  this  could  be  given 
to  a  people,  not  one  of  whom  had  ever  seen  the 
land?  Certainly  none  of  their  ' 'neighbors  nor 
their  friends  of  old  times"  set  up  any  ancient 
landmarks  in  that  country.  When  it  is  under- 
stood that  this  is  given  to  a  people  this  side  of 
the  captivity  all  is  plain. 

I  will  state  only  one  more  case.  In  Deut.  xxxiv- 
10,  the  writer  says: 

"And  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun,  was  filled  with  the 
spirit  of  wisdom;  for  Moses  had  laid  his  hands  upon 
him;  and  the  children  of  Israel  hearkened  unto  him 
and  did  as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses.  And  there 
was  not  a  prophet  in  Israel  since  like  unto  Moses, 
whom  the  Lord  knew  face  to  face." 

It  is  clear  that  this  was  not  written  until  after 
other  prophets  had  arisen  after  Moses  to  be 
compared  with  him.  Moses  could  not  possibly 
have  said,  "And  there  was  not  a  prophet  in 
Israel  since,  like  unto  Aloses." 

This  should  bring  us  somewhere  near  the  end 
of  our  inquiry  on  the  Pentateuch.  If  I  spend  a 
proportionate  amount  of  time  on  each  book  of 
th«  Bible  ^we  shall  all  be  quite  old  before  we  get 
through  it.  Before  closing  this  argument  I  will 
again  refer  to  the  fact  that  the  Pentateuch  re- 
fers to,  and  quotes  from  other  books  not  found 


GENESIS  TO  JOSHUA.  133 

in  tlie  collection  now  erroneously  called  the 
Bible.  I  ^Yill  quote  one  instance  on  this  point. 
In  Num.  xxi.  14,  the  writer  said: 

"Wherefore  it  is  said  in  the  book  of  the  wars  of  the 
Lord,  what  he  did  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  brook  of 
Arnon." 

If  I  should  be  asked  for  my  opinion  as  to 
where  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  had  its  origin 
I  would  answ^er  by  asking  my  interlocutor  to 
turn  to  II  Chron.  xxxiv,  and  read  from  verse 
14  to  verse  24.  Also  to  read  II  Kings  xxii. 
8-18.  There  it  will  be  found  that  Josiah,  a  boy 
only  eight  years  old  was  made  king.  See  II 
Chron.  xxxiv.  1-3.  This  young  king  began  at 
the  age  of  sixteen,  under  the  influence  of  certain 
priests  and  scribes,  to  tear  down  the  places  of 
idolatrous  worship,  and  to  "purge  Judah  and 
Jerusalem."  Among  the  superintendents  of  this 
work  were  Shaphan,  the  scribe,  and  Hilkiah,  the 
priest.  These  gentlemen  had  charge  of  clearing 
away  the  debris  preparatory  to  rebuilding  the 
"house  of  the  Lord."  In  that  debris  the  priest 
Hilkiah  found  a  book,  which,  on  examination, 
proved  to  be  the  "book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord, 
given  by  Moses." 

Now  let  it  be  remembered  that  they  had  been 
for  some  time  tr34ng  to  enforce  their  opinions 
<:oncerning  certain  forms  and  ceremonies  of  the 
"law  of  the  Lord"  upon  the  people,  but  in  this  they 
failed  because  they  had  no  written  law  to  back 
them  in  their  work.  The  thing  they  needed 
above  all  things  else  was  a  written  code.     What 


134     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

a  miracle  it  was  to  find  this  law  just  at  the 
time  when  they  could  get  along  no  farther  with- 
out it!  Fortune  just  at  the  right  time  favored 
the  priests,  and  the  long  lost  "book  of  the  law,'* 
written  by  Moses  came  to  light— found  by  Hil- 
kiah,  a  priest,  who  above  all  others  could  go  no 
farther  in  his  work  without  such  a  document 
to  back  him.  Who  after  that  event  will  not  be- 
lieve in  miracles? 

Now  I  ask,  does  not  the  story  bear  upon  its 
face  the  stamp  of  fraud?  The  priest,  who,  above 
all  others  needed  the  book  to  back  him  in  his 
usurpations  on  the  young  king  and  the  people, 
was  in  luck. 

What  matters  it  that  the  finding  of  the  book 
by  a  priest,  instead  of  by  some  of  the  workmen 
fails  to  fit  the  case?  The  king  was  not  yet  out 
of  his  teens  and  the  people  poor  and  ignorant. 
This  code  must  be  forced  upon  them. 

The  finding  of  the  book  was  not  in  itself  the 
only  miracle,  nor  the  moe^:  suspicious  circum- 
stance attending  the  matter.  The  book  was 
placed  in  the  hands  of  Shaphan  the  scribe,  and 
he  read  it.  That,  of  itself  was  a  miracle.  The 
Hebrew  language,  such  as  Moses  used  was  at  this 
time  a  dead  language.  The  Hebrews  as  v;e  have 
proved,  had  to  have  their  Bible  translated  into 
Greek  before  they  could  read  it.  Who  can  today 
pick  up  a  book  even  three  hundred  years  old  and 
read  it  as  Shaphan  was  supposed  to  have  read 
this  newly  found  law  of  Moses? 

As  before  remarked,  it  was  not  long  after  this 


GENESIS  TO  JOSHUA.  135 

that  the  Jews  had  so  far  lost  their  own  language 
that  their  friend  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  had.  their 
scriptures  translated  into  Greek  for  them.  Now 
will  the  student  please  re-examine  the  evidences 
presented  in  these  pages  and  then  believe  if  he 
can  that  the  Moses  of  Eg^^ptian  birth  and  edu- 
cation wrote  the  Pentateuch. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

JOSHUA  TO  JOB. 

The  Hexateuch— The  Other  side  of  the  Flood— Did  Joshua 
Write  about  "The  Elders  that  overlived  Joshua?" — Dr. 
Brigs'  Testimony — Other  Historical  Books — Wnters  of 
these  Books  knew  little  about  Moses — Samuel,  David, 
Solomon  and  others  Knew  Nothing  of  the  Mosaic  Law — 
Dr.  Gladden  on  Mosaic  Legislation— Gideon  and  Deborah 
Solar  Myths — Was  Jesus  part  Moabite? — Did  Samuel 
Write  the  Books  which  bear  His  Name?— Events  mostly 
post  Samuel — Samuel  and  David  Extolled  at  the  Expense 
of  Saul— B?ble  Samuel  and  the  Sunday  School  Samuel;  the 
difference — Saul  SHghtly  Mixed  on  David— The  Two  Books 
of  Kings  but  One — Written  After  Babylonish  Captivity — 
Books  of  Chronicles  Unhistoripal — Chronicles,  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  all  One  Book — Written  by  a  Priest— John  Chad- 
wick's  Comments — Chronicles  Contradicts  Other  por- 
tions of  the  Bible — Ahaziah  Too  Old — Numerous  Contra- 
dictions Between  Kings  and  Chronicles — How  Satans  and 
Devils  got  into  Chronicles — Dr.  Gladden  on  these  Old 
Writings — Alliance  between  Cyrus  and  The  Jews — The 
Jews'  Return — Ezra  Compelled  them  to  Forsake  their  Fam- 
ilies— Nehemiah's  work  under  Artaxerxes — Book  of  Esth- 
er no  Benefit  to  the  Bible— Vashti  the  only  Noble  Charac- 
ter in  this  Book. 

JOSHUA. 

We   now  come  to  notice  the  book  of  Joshua^ 
the  sixth  book  of  the  Bible,  as  we  have  it.    The 


JOSHUA  TO  JOB.  137 

last  book  of  what  is  properly  called  The  Hcxa- 
teuch.  At  the  first  formation  of  the  Jewish  can- 
on it  was  made  a  part  of  the  Pentateuch.  The 
style  of  the  writing,  in  fact,  everything  proves 
that  it  belongs  with  the  five  books  which  have 
been  falsely  called  the  Five  Books  of  Moses.  It 
closes  up  the  era  before  the  introduction  of  Judg- 
es and  Kings. 

It  has  always  been  claimed  that  Joshua  was  the 
author  of  this  book.  If  he  was,  he  wrote  as  one 
who  lived  hundreds  of  years  after  his  time.  In 
fact  he  wrote  of  occurrences  which  did  not  take 
place  until  after  his  body  had  mingled  with  its  fel- 
low dust.    In  chapter  xv.  63,  he  says: 

"As  for  the  Jebusites,  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem, 
the  children  of  Judah  could  not  drive  them  out;  but 
the  Jebusites  dwell  with  the  children  of  Judah  at  Jer- 
usalem unto  this  day." 

This  was  surely  not  written  until  after  the  Jeb- 
usites, that  is  the  Jerusalemites  gave  their  chal- 
lenge to  David  in  II  Sam.  v.  6-9.  David  builded 
the  City  and  fort  of  David  because  he  found  him- 
self unable  to  take  Jerusalem  proper. 

I  hardly  think  that  Joshua  would  have  written 
the  following  with  all  its  mistakes: 

"And  Joshua  said  unto  all  the  people,  thus  saith  the 
Lord  of  God  of  Israel,  your  fathers  dwelt  on  the  oth- 
er side  of  the  flood  iu  old  time,  even  Terah,  the  father 
of  Abraham,  and  the  father  of  Nachor;  and  the\'  serv- 
ed other  gods.  And  I  took  your  father  Abraham  from 
the  other  side  of  the  flood,  and  led  him  throughout  all 
the  Land  of  Canaan,  and  multiplied  his  seed,  and  gave 
him  Isaac." 


Ic8     THE    BII5LE  AND   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

I  can  imagine  how  a  later  writer  could  have 
made  suck  mistakes  as  are  here  made,  but  I  can- 
not bring  myself  to  believe  that  it  was  possible 
for  Joshua  to  have  believed  that  the  flood, 
w^hich  occured  in  the  days  of  Noah,  was  this 
side  of  Abraham.  I  am  acquainted  with  the 
puny  efforts  which  have  been  made  to  change 
th^e  translation,  and  the  reading  of  this. 
They  all  serve  to  illustrate  the  fact  that  drown- 
ing theologies,  like  drowning  men,  grasp  at 
straws. 

In  xxiv.  29-31  Joshua,  if  he  is  the  author  of 
the  book,  writes  the  history  of  his  own  death 
and  burial,  and  records  the  fact  that  the  people 
served  the  Lord  all  the  days  of  Joshua  and  of  the 
elders  that  overlived  Joshua.  That  beats  Moses, 
for  he  only  recorded  the  thirty  days'  mourning 
because  of  his  death.  This  paragraph  reads  as 
follows: 

"And  it  came  to  pass  after  these  things,  that  Joshua 
the  son  of  Nun,  the  servant  of  the  Lord  died,  being  an 
hundred  and  ten  years  old.  And  they  buried  him  in 
the  border  of  his  inheritance  in  Timnath-serah,  which 
is  in  Mount  Ephraim,  on  the  north  side  of  the  hill 
Gaash.  And  Israel  served  the  Lord  all  the  daj^s  of 
Joshua,  and  all  the  days  of  the  elders  that  overlived 
Joshua,  and  which  had  known  aU  the  works  of  the 
Lord,  that  he  had  done  in  Israel." 

The  first  thirteen  chapters  relate  and  I  hope 
over-state  the  particulars  of  Joshua's  butcheries 
in  the  conquest  of  the  Land  of  Canaan.  I  hinted 
that  Joshua  was  perhaps,  not  the  butcher  that 
he  is  here  represented  to  have  been.      We  know 


JOSHUA  TO  JOB.  139 

that  he  did  not  conquer  and  drive  out  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  land  as  is  here  stated.  All  through 
the  book  of  Judges  this  same  work  of  driving 
out  these  same  enemies  is  continued.  After  that 
Saul  died  for  not  doing  his  duty  in  driving  thes'e 
same  enemies  out.  After  Saul,  David  spent  the 
most  of  his  life  in  exterminating  these  same  peo- 
ple whom  Joshua  blotted  off  the  face  of  the  earth, 
in  so  much  that  there  was  not  one  ^'left  to 
breathe." 

The  fourteenth  chapter  of  Joshua,  to  the  close 
of  the  book  is  devoted  to  dividing  the  lands 
of  that  conquered  people  among  the  tribes  o'f 
Israel. 

Before  leaving  this  book  I  feel  to  quote  Mr. 
Sunderland,  who  says  on  page  87,  of  his  "Origin 
and  growth  of  the  Bible:" 

"The  narratives  of  the  book  give  a  graphic  picture 
of  society  in  this  early  period,  but  the^^  are  much 
mixed  with  legend,  from  which  it  is  difficult  to  sepa- 
rate the  real  history.  The  book  was  probably  written 
during  the  Babylonian  exile.  Its  writer  is  prophetic 
rather  than  priestl^^  in  spirit.  He  constructs  his  book 
out  of  such  writings  and  oral  traditions  as  he  can 
gather  at  that  late  date." 

Now  I  feel  that  I  would  not  be  justified  in 
closing  this  examination  without  leading  the 
student  to  see  how  universally  the  learned  world 
have  of  late  been  led  to  adopt  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism on  this  question.  I  quote  from  Prof.  Briggs, 
as  quoted  by  Rev.  Dr.  Gladden,  on  pages  57,  58 
of  his  ''Who  wrote  the  Bible?" 


140     THE    BIULE  AND   THE   IIIGHER   CRITICISM. 

the  critical  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch  is  the  result 
of  more  than  a  century  of  profound  study  of  the  doc- 
uments by  the  greatest  critics  of  the  age.  There  has 
been  a  steady  advance  until  the  present  position  of 
agreement  has  been  reached,  in  which  Jew  and  Christ- 
ian, Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant,  Rationalistic  and 
Evangelical  scholars,  Reformed  and  Lutheran,  Presby- 
terian and  Episcopal,  Unitarian,  Methodist  and  Bap- 
tist, all  concur.  The  Analysis  of  the  Hexateuch  into 
several  distinct  original  documents  is  a  purely  literary 
question  in  which  no  article  of  faith  is  involved.  Who- 
ever in  these  times,  in  the  literary  phenomena  of  the 
Hexateuch,  appeals  to  the  ignorance  and  prejudices  of 
the  multitude  as  if  there  were  any  peril  to  faith  in 
these  processes  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  risks  his  repu- 
tation for  scholarship  for  so  doing.  There  are  no  He- 
brew professors  on  the  Continent  of  Europe  so  far  as 
I  know,  who  would  deny  the  literary  analysis  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  the  four  great  documents.  The  profes- 
sors of  Hebrew  in  the  Universities  of  Oxford,  Cam- 
bridge and  Edinburgh,  and  tutors  in  a  large  number  of 
theological  colleges,  hold  the  same  opinion.  ♦  ♦  ♦  i 
doubt  whether  there  is  any  question  of  scholarship 
whatever  in  which  there  is  a  greater  agreement  among 
scholars  than  in  this  question  of  the  literary  analysis 
of  the  Hexateuch." 

With  this  we  must  leave  the  first  six  books  of 
the  Bible.  Remember  our  effort  have  not  been  to 
show  that  these  books  did  not  contain  grand 
truths,  but  that  they  come  from  different  authors 
who  were  like  the  people  of  today,  extremely 
fallible. 

JUDGES— RUTH— THE     SAMUELS.    1^ 

The  other  historical  books  of  the   Old  'Testa- 


JOSHUA   TO  JOB.  141 

ment  are  Judges,  Ruth,  First  and  Second  Samuel, 
First  and  Second  Kings,  First  and  Second  Chron- 
icles, Ezra,  Nehemiah  and  Esther.  The  book  of 
Judges  is  first  in  the  list;  while  they  will,  in  a 
sense,  be  considered  seriatim  they  are  so  closely 
connected  that  thej^  cannot  wholly  be  separated. 
The  book  of  Ruth  is  the  conclusion  of  the  book 
of  Judges. 

The  two  books  of  Samuel,  and  the  two  books 
of  Kings  ought  all  to  be  in  one  book.  In  the 
Sep tu agin t  they  are  called  First,  Second,  Third 
and  Fourth  books  of  Kings.  The  book  of  Ezra 
is  torn  off  from  the  book  of  Second  Chronicles  as 
i*^  by  accident.  It  is  torn  apparently  in  the  mid- 
dle of  a  vSentence.  The  book  of  Nehemiah  is 
really  but  a  continuation  of  the  book  of  Ezra. 

All  the  literature  of  all  these  books  is  of  a 
composite  character.  The  collection  of  their  ma- 
terials was  from  many  sources,  and  the  process 
of  the  collection  extended  through  many  hundred 
years,  and  yet  not  a  thing  of  all  of  them  was 
collected  from  Moses.  It  is  doubtful  whether 
rnany  of  these  writers  and  collectors  ever  heard 
of  Moses.  The  work  of  collecting  these  books 
was  not  fully  done  until  the  return  from  the 
Babylonish  captivity,  fully  two-thirds  of  the  way 
from  Moses  to  Jesus. 

In  the  first  four  of  these  books  there  is  no  note 
of  the  Mosiac  legislation.  Indeed  the  name  of 
Moses  is  not  mentioned  more  than  six  times  in 
these  four  books.  This  looks  as  though  the  Mo- 
saic   work    was    done    here    and    not  at  all    by 


142      THE  BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Moses.  The  Mosaic  work  and  laws  were  at  least 
for  the  most  part,  after-thonghts.  Mr.  Gladden 
says: 

"Samuel  the  prophet  anointed  Satil,  and  afterward 
David,  as  kings  of  Israel;  but,  if  on  these  occasions, 
he  said  anything  about  the  writings  of  Moses  or  the 
law  of  Moses,  the  fact  is  not  mentioned.  The  records 
afford  us  no  ground  of  affirming  that  either  Samuel 
or  Saul  was  aware  of  the  existence  of  such  sacred  writ- 
ings. This  is  a  notable  fact.  That  the  written  law 
of  Moses  should  for  four  centuries  of  Hebrew  history 
have  disappeared  so  completely  from  notice  that  the 
historian  did  not  find  it  necessary  to  make  any  allusion 
to  it,  is  a  circumstance  that  needs  explanation. 

It  might  be  here  added  that  the  supposed  law 
of  Moses  would  premit  of  offering  sacrifices  at 
po  other  place  than  in  the  tabernacle,  yet  none 
of  the  people  who  figured  in  the  books  under  con- 
sideration had  ever  heard  of  it.  Samuel  offered 
burnt  offerings  at  Gilgal.  I  Sam.  x.  8,  13,  15. 
Both  David  and  Solomon  permitted  the  people 
to  offer  sacrifices  in  many  ''high  places"  I  Kin. 
iii.  24. 

In  collateral  proof  that  in  the  book  of  Judges, 
for  four  hundred  years  they  had  not  heard  of 
the  Mosaic  law,  Mr.  Gladden  says: 

"According  to  Levitical  law  it  was  positively  un- 
lawful for  any  person  but  the  high  priests  ever  to  go 
into  the  innermost  sanctuary,  the  holy  of  hohes,  where 
the  ark  of  God  was  kept;  and  the  high  priests  could 
not  go  into  that  awful  place  but  once  a  year.  But  we 
find  the  boy  Samuel  actually  sleeping  in  the  temple  of 
the  Lord,  'where  the  ark  of  the  Lord  was.'    The  old 


JOSHUA  TO  JOB.  143 

version  conceals  the  fact  by  a  mistranslation.  These 
are  only  a  few  of  many  violations  of  Pentateuchal 
legislation  which   we  find  recorded  in  these  books. 

''From  the  silence  of  these  earlier  histories  concern- 
ing the  law^  of  Moses,  and  from  these  many  trans- 
gressions, by  the  holiest  men,  of  the  positive  require- 
ments of  the  Pentateuchal  legislation,  the  conclusion 
has  been  drawn  by  recent  critics  that  the  Pentateuchal 
legislation  could  not  have  been  in  existence  during  this 
period  of  history;  that  it  must  have  been  produced  at 
a  later  day."    See  pp.  74,  75. 

The  stories  of  Gideon,  of  Deborah,  and  other 
stories  in  these  books  were  undoubtedly  legends 
and  solar  myths,  as  explained  by  Rev.  Robert 
Taylor  and  others.  On  this  point  nearly  all  late 
writers  are  agreed.    Mr.  Chad  wick  says: 

"Will  the  story  of  Sampson  be  any  less  sugges- 
tive to  the  poet,  when  he  is  told  that  his  place 
amono:  the  Judges  is  an  extremely  doubtful  one?  He 
is  nowhere  represented  as  exercising  military  leader- 
ship, the  characteristic  function  of  the  Judges.  In 
fact,  his  story  proves  to  be  a  solar  myth,  the  name 
Sampson  signifying  the  sun-god,  and  many  of  the  de- 
tails of  his  story  easily  admitting  of  a  mythological 
explanation.  So  evident  is  this,  that  it  was  the  storj' 
of  Sampson  which  first  suggested  to  Steinthal  and 
other  critics,  the  existence  of  an  underlying  stratum 
of  solar  myth  in  the  Old  Testament  histories.  As  the 
story  has  come  down  to  us  it  has  been  amalgamated 
with  the  story  of  some  Danite  hero.  In  the  course 
of  development  sometimes  the  mythical  name  absorbed 
the  hneaments  of  some  actual  hero,  and  sometimes 
the  name  of  some  actual  hero  absorbed  the  lineaments 
of  the  solar  mvth." 


144     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

The  book  of  Kuth,  a  small  book  of  only  four 
chapters,  is  cut  off  from  the  book  of  Judges.  It 
is  a  legend,  perhaps  founded  on  fact.  It  is  the 
story  of  Ruth,  a  Moabitish  woman,  falling  in 
love  with,  and  finally  marrjang  a  Jew,  by  the 
name  of  Boaz,  the  great-grand-father  of  David. 
Of  that  illicit  alliance  between  the  Israelite  and 
this  hated  Moabite-Gentile,  was  Jesus,  **the 
world's  savior"  bom.  Thus,  Jesus  is  not  wholly 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  but  a  combination  of  Jew 
and  the  detested  Moabites,— one  who  was  not 
to  be  allowed  to  ''enter  the  congregation  of  the 
Lord  to  the  tenth  generation." 

It  was  said  to  the  Israelites,  "thou  shall  not 
seek  their  peace,  nor  their  prosperity  all  their 
days  forever."  See  Deut.  xxi  .  3-6.  This  is  pret- 
ty hard  on  one  of  Jesus'  grand-mothers,  and 
would  even  keep  David  out,  and  debar  Solomon 
from  the  temple  which  he  builded,  but  it  is  in 
the  prose-poem  which  winds  up  the  book  of 
Judges,  and  has  been  set  off  in  tract  form  b3'  it- 
self and  called  "Ruth,"  after  the  name  of  its 
heroine. 

SAMUEL. 

We  now  pass  to  notice  the  two  books  of  Sam- 
uel. Here,  as  in  the  case  of  Moses  and  Joshua, 
we  have  the  old,  old  story,  that  is,  that  Samuel, 
the  prophet,  wrote  the  two  books  which  bear 
his  nam^e.  It  would  sound  much  more  like  truth 
to  say  that  Ruth  wrote  the  book  of  Ruth, 
Esther  the  book  of  Esther,  and  Job  the  book  of 
Job. 


JOSHUA   TO  JOB.  145 

The  first  book  of  Samuel  gives  the  account  of 
the  death  and  burial  of  Samuel,  and  of  his  re- 
turning to  communicate.  (See  I  Sam.  xxv.  1, 
xxviii.  3-19.)  Neither  of  the  other  before  mentioned 
books  inform  us  that  the  ladies  or  gentlemen 
after  whom  they  were  named  ever  passed  away. 

The  second  book  of  Samuel  runs  down  to  the 
close  of  David's  forty  years  reign,  which  did  not 
begin  until  some  time  after  Samuel  had  gone  to 
join  his  fathers. 

Even  the  first  of  these  books  records  several 
post-Samuel  events.  As  an  illustration  I  might 
quotfe  Chapter  xxii,  and  verses  6  and  7.  There 
we  find  the  following  record: 

"Then  Achshish  (King  of  Gath)  gave  him  Ziklag 
that  day;  wherefore  Ziklag  pertaineth  unto  the  kings 
of  Judah  unto  this  day.  And  the  time  that  David 
was  in  the  country  of  the  Philistines  was  a  year  and 
six  months." 

Here  the  king  of  Gath  made  a  present  of  a 
small  province  to  David,  at  a  time  when  David 
and  his  few  friends  w^ere  outcasts  in  Israel,  and 
were  in  hiding  from  Saul  and  his  army,  w^hich 
was  after  Samuel's  death.  In  fact  this  could 
not  have  been  written  until  after  Israel  had  re- 
belled against  Judah  in  consequence  of  the  cruel 
conduct  of  Rehoboam,  David's  grandson.  The 
expression  'Svherefore  Ziklag  pertaineth  untc. 
the  kings  of  Judah  unto  this  day,"  must  havc 
been  written  after  Judah  had  become  a  separate 
government  from  Israel  and  had  had  more  than 
one  king. 

Mr.  Chadwick  rightly    argues    that  the  object 


146     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

of  the  writer  of  these  two  books,  who,  by  the 
way,  could  not  have  lived  earlier  than  about 
four  hundred  years  after  Samuel,  was  to  glorify 
Samuel  and  David  at  the  expense  of  Saul.  I 
cannot  present  the  matter  better  than  he  has 
done.    Bible  of  to-day  pp.  59,  60,  says: 

"The  text  of  Samuel  is  more  'corrupt'  than  that  of 
any  other  book;  that  is  to  say,  more  mistakes  have 
occurred  in  the  transcription  of  manuscripts  and  more 
liberties  have  been  taken  by  transcribers.  Davidson 
marshals  hundreds  of  absurdities  or  contradictions 
that  have  occurred  in  one  or  the  other  of  these  ways. 
But  through  this  haze  of  doubt  and  contradiction  we 
distinguish  the  impressive  forms  of  Samuel,  Saul  and 
David;  we  see  the  growing  dawn  of  Hebrew  nation- 
ality; and  we  see,  in  spite  of  the  final  author's  pre- 
dictions, that  not  to  Samuel  or  David,  but  to  Saul 
belongs  such  credit  as  inheres  in  that  event.  But  if 
to  Saul  belongs  the  credit  of  national  union,  to  Sam- 
uel, who  opposed  this  union  belongs  the  credit  of  re- 
viving the  worship  of  Yahweh.  Apparently  no  mono- 
theist,  and  conceiving  of  Yahweh  as  a  God  delighting 
in  the  blood  of  human  sacrifice  he  was  a  strict  rnona- 
litrist,  insisting  that  to  Yahweh  Israel  must  paj'  ex- 
clusive homage.  A  very  different  person  from  the 
Samuel  of  the  Sunday-school  books  and  the  popular 
theology,  ecclesiastical  forerunner  of  the  headstrong 
Hildebrands,  Bernards,  and  Beckcts  of  the  Christian 
era,  he  had  a  work  to  do  and  did  it  wonderfully  well. 
For  all  the  writer's  good  intentions  the  David  of  the 
book  of  Samuel  is  not  the  David  of  the  Psalms,  as 
w^e  shall  see  in  due  time.  He  is  a  man  of  cruelty, 
treachery  and  lust;  a  man  after  Yahweh's  own  heart, 
as  he  conceives  Yahweh,  a    god  to  whom  he  sacrifices 


JOSHUA   TO  JOB.  147 

the  seven  sons  of  Saul.  Yahweh  was  a  god  after  his 
own  heart,  and  that  was  the  heart  of  a  man  who 
passed  the  Ammonites  under  saws  and  under  harro\YS 
of  iron,  and  under  axes  of  iron,  and  made  them  pass 
through  the  brick-kiln'— that  is,  burned  them  or 
roasted  them  to  death." 

The  writer  of  the  books  of  Samuel  often  gets 
mixed  up  in  his  historical  facts  as  well  as  in 
his  dates.  As  an  illustration,  in  1  Sam.  xvi.  14- 
23,  David  is  introduced  to  Saul,  as  a  "mighty, 
valiant  man  and  a  man  of  war."  Verse  IS.  He 
became  a  member  of  Saul's  household,  and  Saul's 
armor-bearer.  See  verse  21.  After  this,  when 
Goliath  challenged  any  man  in  Israel's  army  to 
meet  him  in  open  combat  and  all  were  afraid  of 
him,  the  boy  David  went  from  his  father's  house, 
by  command  of  his  father,  to  carry  some  parched 
com,  ten  loaves  of  bread  and  some  cheese  to  his 
**big  brothers"  in  war.  The  lad  hears  this  boast- 
ing Goliath  and  accepted  his  challenge.  The  re- 
sult is  well  known;  the  "stripling"  killed  the  olc? 
warrior.  He,  of  course,  carried  his  head  to  th^ 
king.  Then  Saul,  who  it  appears  had  nevei- 
heard  of  David  until  the  "stripling"  came  to 
him,  to  get  the  opportunity  to  accept  the  war- 
rior's challenge,  inquired,  "who  is  this  strip- 
ling?" Gen.  Abner  then  took  David  and  intro- 
duced him  to  Saul,  whereupon  Saul  propounded 
certain  inquiries.  He  said  to  David,  "Whose  son 
art  thou,  young  man?".  And  David  answered, 
"I  am  the  son  of  thy  servant  Jesse,  the  Bethle- 
hemite."  See  Chapter  xvii.  55-58.  Here  I  must 
leave  the  books  of  Samuel  and  take  up  the 


148     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

BOOKS   OF   KINGS. 

I  have  said  the  two  books  of  Kings  were  or- 
iginally but  one  book.  The  books  have  the  ap- 
pearance of  having  been  torn  in  twain  in  the 
middle,  and  thus  made  into  two  books.  The 
first  book  breaks  off  in  the  middle  of  its  talk 
about  King  Ahaziah,  the  son  of  Ahab.  To  illus- 
trate the  fact  that  these  books  are  both  one  I 
Avill  quote  without  making  any  break  the  last 
Averse  of  first  Kings,  and  the  first  two  verses  of 
.second  Kings. 

"For  he  served  Baal,  and  worshipped  him,  and  pro- 
voked to  anger  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  according  to 
all  that  his  father  had  done.  Then  Moab  rebelled 
against  Israel  after  the  death  of  Ahab.  And  Ahaziah 
fell  down  through  a  lattice  in  his  upper  chamber  that 
was  in  Samaria.,  and  was  sick;  and  he  sent  messen- 
gers, and  said  unto  them,  go  and  inquire  of  Baal- 
zebub,  the  god  of  Ekron,  whether  1  shall  recover  of 
this  disease." 

Now  who  can  tell  from  reading  this  where  one 
book  ends  and  another  begins? 

It  would  be  well  for  the  student  to  rea^  sev- 
eral verses  of  the  context  both  preceding  and 
following  this  paragraph. 

These  books  begin  with  the  end  of  David's 
reign  where  Second  Samuel  leaves  off,  and  carry 
the  history  down  to  the  time  of  the  Babylonish 
<captivit3%  a  period  of  about  four  hundred  and 
fifty  years.  Though  the  author  is  not  without 
mistakes,  as  will  appear,  I  think,  on  the  whole 
he  was  honest  and  conscientious. 

Who  is  the  author  of  these   books  is  a  matter 


JOSHUA  TO  JOB.  149 

of  Opinion?  There  are  many  strong  reasons  for 
supposing  thej'  were  written  by  the  prophet 
Jeremiah.  This  book  claims  to  be  a  kind  of 
mosaic,  much  of  it  taken  from  other  books.  If 
the  student  will  compare  the  twent3^-fifth  chap- 
ter of  II  Kings  with  the  fift\'-second  chapter 
of  Jeremiah,  he  will  make  the  discover\^  that 
one  is  taken  from  the  other;  or  that  both  are 
taken  from  one  original.  As  these  chapters  talk 
of  Evil-Merodach,  who  I  think  was  the  first 
king  of  Babylon,  they  show  that  the  books 
could  not  have  been  written  until  in  his  reign. 
He  was  the  king  who  released  King  Jehoiakim 
from  his  long  confinenient,  these  books  follow 
rather  than  precede  the  captivity. 

I  have  said  that  these  books  contain  many 
references  to  other  books — books  the  very  ex- 
istence of  which  we  could  know  nothinsr  were  it 
not  for  these  references.     They  refer  to: 

:l .  The  book  of  the  Acts  of  Solomon.  I  Kin. 
xi.  4.1. 

2.  The  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  King^s 
of  Israel.  I  Kin.  xiv.  19.  Be  it  remembered  the 
books  of  Chronicles  in  our  Bible  do  not  pretend 
to  be  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  or 
Judah.  Even  if  they  did  they  were  not  written 
until  two  hundred  years  after  the  writing  of  the 
two  books  under  consideration.  This  book  is 
referred  to  seventeen  times. 

3.  The  books  of  the  Chronicle  of  Kings  of 
Judah  are  referred  to  fifteen  times.    See  I  Kin.  xiv. 


150     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

29.     Space   forbids   my  going   further  into    this 
matter. 

While  these  books  contain  many  minor  errors, 
and  what  book  does  not,  I  believe  the  writer 
was  as  honest  in  his  opinions  and  in  his  records 
as  liis  prejudices  and  his  general  lack  of  more 
correct  information  would  allow. 

Smith's  Bible  Dictionary  says: 

^'The  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  both  natural  and  arti- 
ficial, with  religious,  military  and  civil  instructions  of 
the  people,  their  arts  and  manufactures,  the  state  of 
.  ication  and  learning  among  them,  their  resources 
and  commerce,  exploits,  alliances,  the  cause  of  their 
decadence,  and  finally  of  thteir  ruin,  are  most  clear,  in- 
teresting and  instructive.  In  a  few  brief  sentences  we 
acquire  more  accurate  knowledge  of  the  affairs  of 
Egypt,  Tyre,  Syria,  Babylon,  and  other  neighboring 
nations  than  had  been  preserved  to  us  in  all  other 
remains  of  antiquity  up  to  recent  discoveries  in  hiero- 
glyphical  and  cuneiform  monuments."     - 

In  illustration  of  the  fact  that  mistakes 
have  crept  into  these  books  Mr.  Gladden  shows 
that  the  book  states  that  Hoshea  began  to  reign 
in  the  twentieth  year  of  Jotham,  and  again, 
that  Jotham  reigned  only^  sixteen  years.  I^lease 
compare  II  Kin.  xv.  30,  with  verse  33  of  the 
same  chapter. 

After  quoting  a  few  such  facts,  Mr.  Gladden 
says: 

"Observe  that  we  are  not  going  to  any  hostile  or 
foreign  sources  for  these  evidences  of  inaccuracy.  We 
are  simply  letting  the  book  tell  its  own  story.  Such 
phenomena  as  these    appear    throughout  this  history. 


JOSHUA  TO  JOB.  151 

They  lie  upon  the  face  of  the  narrative.  Probably 
few  of  the  readers  of  these  pages  have  noted  them. 
For  ni\'self  I  must  confess  that  I  had  read  the  Bible 
through  from  cover  to  cover,  several  times  before  I 
was  thirty  j^ears  old,  but  I  had  never  observed  these 
inaccuracies.  The  commentators,  for  the  most  part,^ 
the  orthodox  commentators — carefully  keep  these  facts 
out  of  sight. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  books  of  Rings,  like 
most  of  the  other  supposed  historical  books  of 
the  Bible  recorded  many  things  which  did  not 
occur  until  long  after  their  supposed  writers  had 
gone  to  join  their  fathers.  Such  anachronisms 
throw  an  unexpected  light  on  the  origin  of  the 
books  of  the  Bible. 

FIRST  AND  SECOND  CHRONICLES. 

We  now  approach  to  an  examination  of  the 
most  unhistorical  of  all  the  pretended  historical 
books  of  tile  Old  Testament— the  book  of  I 
Chronicles. 

The  two  books  of  Chronicles  with  Ezra  and 
Neiieniiah  were  originally  but  one  book.  The 
books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  carry  the  Jewish 
history  down  to  the  return  from  Bab^donish  cap- 
tivit^^  For  that  reason  the  Jews  first  left  the 
books  of  Chronicles  out  of  their  Bibles.  But  the 
substance  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  not  being  in 
the  Samuels  and  Kings,  was  put  into  their  Bibles, 
They  were  absolutely  torn  from  the  book  of 
Chronicles  without  so  much  as  the  end  of  a  sen- 
tence between  them.  I  have  before  shown  that 
there  is  no  proper  division  between   the    books 


152     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 


of  Kings.  To  show  that  there  is  no  division 
between  II  Chronicles  and  Ezra,  I  will  quote  a 
portion  of  the  last  chapter  of  one  and  a  verse  of 
the  first  chapter  of  the  other  without  making  a 
paragraph.  Even  the  period  at  the  end  of  II 
Chronicles  should  be  taken  out.  It  reads  as 
follows: 

''Now  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus,  king  of  Persia  that 
the  word  of  the  Lord  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  Jeremi- 
ah might  be  accomplished,  the  Lord  stirred  up  the 
spirit  of  Cyrus,  king  of  Persia,  that  he  made  a  procla- 
mation-, throughout  all  his  kingdom,  and  put  it  also 
in  writing,  saying,  thus  saith  Cj'rus,  king  of  Persia,  all 
the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  hath  the  Lord  God  of  heav- 
en given  to  me;  and  he  hath  charged  me  to  build  him 
an  house  in  Jerusalem,  which  is  in  Judah.  Who  is 
there  among  you  of  all  his  people?  the  Lord,  his  God, 
be  with  him,  and  let  him  go  up;  now  in  the  first  year 
of  Cj-rus,  king  of  Persia,  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  by 
the  m.outh  of  Jeremiah  might  be  fulfilled,  .the  Lord 
stirred  up  the  spirit  of  Cyrus,  king  of  Persia,  that  he 
made  a  proclamation  throughout  all  his  kingdom,  and 
put  it  also  in  writing,  sa\4ng,  thus  saith  Cyrus,  king 
iji  .'crsia,  the  Lord  of  heaven  hath  given  me  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  earth;  and  he  hath  charged  me  to 
build  him  an  house  at  Jerusalem,  which  is  in  Judah. ^ 

Here  it  is  found  that  II  Chron.  xxxvi.  22,  and 
Ezra  i.  1,  are  identical— a  repetition  for  the  sake 
of  introduction — then  the  matter  goes  on  with- 
out any  break. 

These  books  pretend  to  go  back  to  Adam,  and 
bring  history  down  to  within  three  hundred 
years  of  Christ.      The  first  part  of  I  Chronicles 


JOSHUA  TO  JOB.  153 

is  a  dry  and  uninteresting  list  of  what  Paul 
would  call  "endless  genealogies." 

These  books  were  evidently  written  by  some 
one  connected  with  the  temple  service;  and  writ- 
ten vv'ith  the  idea  of  lauding  Samuel  and  David 
at  the  expense  of  Saul.     Prof.  Toj^  says. 

"The  difitTence  between  the  books  of  Kings  and 
Chronicles  is  this:  Kings  (which  is  a  continuation  of 
JuiIljcs  and  Samuel)  was  written  by  a  prophet  during 
the  I'.abylonian  exile;  it  gives  the  liistory  of  both  the 
southern  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  the  northern  kingdom 
of  1d...v.1,  and  its  object  is  to  show  that  the  nation's 
prosperity  was  in  proportion  to  its  observance  of  tem- 
ple service.  Much  that  Chronicles  sa3's  of  temple  serv- 
ice is  not  reliable."     — History  of  Isarel.    pp.  39,  40. 

These  books  pervert  our  knowledge  more  than 
they  assist  it.  After  the  return  of  the  Jews,  if 
a  system  of  forms  and  ceremonies  was  to  be 
established  among  them,  such  a  book  as  the  one 
(now^  four)  under  review  was  needed. 

Some  priestly  writer — some  one  connected  with 
the  temple  service — must  have  written  it;  no  one 
else  was  capable  of  the  work. 

In  these  books  Saul  is  almost  entirely  ignored, 
while  David  and  Solomon  are  lauded  to  the  skies. 
David's  faults  are  passed  over  in  silence.  When 
Solomon's  sins  are  told  the  cause  of  them  is  laid 
at  the  door  of  his  numerous  wives.  Mr.  Chad- 
wick  tells  the  story  as  follows: 

David  and  Solomon  especially  appear  in  such  new 
guise  that  they  bear  hardl_v  the  least  resemblance  to 
the  David  and  Solomon  of  the  earlier  histories.  Solo- 
mon had  up  to  this  time  all  the  credit  of  building  the 


154     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

temple,  and  originating  its  service,  but  in  the  popular 
imagination  Solomon  was  no  such  pious  king  as  Da- 
vid. What  then  does  the  Chronicler  do  but  transfer  to 
David  the  entire  credit  of  the  design  of  the  temple 
and  the  organization  of  the  temple  service?  Nothing 
remains  for  Solomon  but  to  carry  out  the  plans  of 
David.  The  fondness  of  Solomon  for  other  forms  of 
worship  than  that  of  Yahweh  is  passed  over  lightly, 
and  made  to  appear  the  sin  of  old  age,  and  in  the  same 
oriental  spirit  that  makes  Eve  seduce  her  husband, 
his  wives  are  charged  with  his  defection.  Manassah 
whose,  reign  all  the  way  from  695,  B.  C,  to  640— the 
longest  reign  of  any  king  of  Judah,  and  the  most  pros- 
perous and  peaceful — offered  a  very  knotty  problem  to 
the  Chronicler,  who,  with  Ezekiel,  believed  the  nation- 
al prosperity  depended  on  the  faithful  service  of  Yah- 
weh, for  Manasseh  fostered  all  the  abominations  of  the 
Canaanites.  And  so  Manasseh  is  made  to  suffer  cap- 
tivity, and  to  repent  in  dust  and  ashes  for  his  wicked- 
ness. But  for  neither  repentance  nor  captivity,  is 
there  any  warrant  in  the  earlier  and  more  truthful 
histories.  The  story  is,  perhaps,  the  earliest  prototype 
of  a  numerous  class  of  famous  recantations,  of  which 
Voltaire's  and  Thomas  Paine's  are  modern  illustra- 
tions, and  equally  without  a  particle  of  evidence.'* 
—Bible  of  Today,    pp.  63,  64. 

The  Chronicles  were  written  much  later  than 
the  two  books  of  Kings,  and  are  generally  called 
less  reliable  than  the  histories  found  in  other 
books.  Their  contradictions  of  other  books  are 
numerous.    I  will  give  a  few  samples. 

In  I  Chron.  xviii.  3,  4,  it  will  be  found  that 
when  David  smote  Hadarezer,  he  took  from  him 
a  thousand  chariots,  and  seven  thousand  horse- 


JOSHUA   TO  JOB.  155 

men,  and  twenty  thousand  footmen.  Now  turn 
back  to  II  Sam.  viii.  3,  4,  where  the  same  story  is 
told.  It  is  Hadadezer  instead  of  Hadarezer,  and 
David  took  onlj^  seven  hundred  horsemen  in- 
stead of  seven  thousand. 

In  I  Chron.  xxi.  5,  it  will  be  found  that  when 
David  numbered  Israel,  -e  were  ''a  thousand 
thousand  and  a  hundred  thousand  men;  and  of 
Judah  there  were  four  hundred  three  score  and 
ten  thousand  men."  This  was  a  great  increase 
in  the  number  of  fighting  men  in  Israel  since  the 
same  story  was  told  in  II  Sam.  xxiv.  9.  There 
it  will  be  found  that  there  were  only  eight  hun- 
dred thouo.  ad  Israelitish  warrors.  But  the  Jews 
made  up  a  part  of  the  deficiency  by  having  five 
hundred  th^  isand  men  able  to  go  to  war.  Thus 
the  Chroniclers  dispute  other  authors  on  every 
point.  Thus,  in  II  Chron.  xxi.  20,  and  xxii.  1, 
2,  this  writer  not  only  disputes  the  author  of 
II  Kin.  viii.  24,  but  he  actualh^  makes  Ahaziah 
two  years  older  than  his  father, 

Turn  to  I  Chron.  xxi.  25,  and  you  will  find 
that  wlien  David  purchased  the  threshing  floor 
of  ._runah  he  paid  six  hundred  sheckels  of  gold 
by  weight  for  it.  That  is,  according  to  our  reck- 
oning, near,  or  quite  $3,500.  But  as  the  sto- 
r^"  was  originally  told  in  Sam.  xxiv.  24,  it  was 
not  gold  at  all  that  was  weighed  out,  it  was 
silver,  and  there  was  only  fifty  sheckels  of  it; 
that  is,  between  $25.00  and  $30.00.  ''0,  my 
countrvmen  what  a  fall  .was  there."  But  prob- 
abl}'  the  first  story  told  was  more  nearly  correct, 


156     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

and  it  is  supposed  that  it  paid  the  farmer  all 
that  his  threshing  floor  was  worth. 

The  second  book  of  Chronicles  twice  informs 
us  that  king  Asa  lived  without  war.  Chapter 
xiv.  1,  says:  ''And  Abijah  slept  with  his  fathers, 
and  they  buried  him  in  the  city  of  David;  and 
Asa  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead.  And  in  his 
days  the  land  was  quiet." 

In  chapter  xv.  from  verse  9  to  the  end  of  the 
chapter  tells  how  universally  the  people  submit- 
ted to  the  King.     Verse  19  says: 

"And  there  was  no  more  war  unto  the  five  and  thir- 
tieth year    of  the  reign  of  Asa." 

It  v^ill  be  noticed  that  the  word  more  in  this 
text  is  in  italics  showing  that  there  is  nothing 
in  the  original  to  justify  it. 

Now  turn  to  I  PCin.  xv.  32,  and  read. 
"And  there  was  war  between  Asa  and  Baasha  king 
of  Israel  all  their  daj^s." 

These  scriptures  can  never  be  harmonized.  As 
the  books  of  Chronicles  were  of  later  date  than 
those  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  and  as  the  writer 
evidently  wrote  with  a  motive  which  to  him 
may  have  seemed  p'ure,  but  which  is  not  so  to- 
da3^,  the  Higher  Critics  generally,  in  places 
where  they  differ,  take  the  Samuels  and  Kings 
in  preference  to  the  Chronicles. 

Let  us  return  and  compare  these  books  once 
more.  The  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  were 
written  before  the  Jews  became  very  well  ac- 
quainted with  Devils,  Satans,  etc.,  hence  in  II 
Sam.    xxiv.    1.      "The    ang-er    of  the    Lord   was 


JOSHUA  TO  JOB.  157 

kindled  against  Israel,  and  he  moved  David,  say- 
ing go  and  number  Israel  and  Judah."  The  books 
of  Chronicles  being  written  less  than  3oO  years 
before  Christ,  the  Jews  had  become  better  ac- 
jquainted  with  the  Babylonians  and  Persians  and 
their  literature  than  they  were  with  their  own. 
They  had  become  acquainted  with  devils  of  near- 
ly all  kinds;  hence,  when  you  come  to  I  Chron. 
xxi.  1,  you  will  find:  ''And  Satan  stood  up 
.against  Israel,  and  provoked  David  to  number 
Israel."  For  this  numbering  **the  anger  of  the 
Lord  was  kindled  against  Israel,"  and  he  took 
vengeance  on  the  poor  fellows  who  were  num- 
bered. The  Lord  slew  seventy  thousand  inno- 
cent people.  See  I  Chron.  xxi.  14.  II  Sam. 
xxiv.  15.  Rev.  Mr.  Gladden,  after  giving  this 
much  more  fully  than  I  have  done,  says: 

"We  are.no t  concerned  to  reconcile  the  two  accounts, 
for  neither  of  them  can  be  true.  Let  us  not  suppose 
we  can  be  required,  bj"-  any  theory  of  inspiration,  to 
blaspheme  God  by  accusing  him  of  any  such  rr.on- 
strous  iniquity.  Let  no  man  open  his  mouth  in  this 
day  to  declare  that  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  instiga- 
ted David  to  do  a  presumptuous  deed,  and  then  slew 
seventy  thousand  of  David's  subjects  for  the  sin  of 
their  ruler.  Such  a  view  of  God  might  have  been 
held  without,  censure  three  thousand  years  ago;  it  can- 
not be  held  without  sin  b3'  men  who  have  the  New 
Testament  in  their  hands.  This  narrative  belongs  to 
that  class  of  crude  and  defective  teachings  which  Jes- 
us, in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount  points  out  and  sets 
aside.  ***  Such  blurred  and  distorted  ideas  about 
God  and  his  truths  we  do  certainly  find  here  and  there 
in   these    old  writings:   the  treasure  which   they  have 


158     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

preserved  for  us  is  in  earth  n  vessels;  the  human  ele- 
ment, which  is  a  necessary  ^art  of  a  written  rc\  ela- 
tion, fill  the  while  display's  itv?  ^f.  It  is  human  to  err; 
and  the  men  who  wrote  the  Bi  ^"^  were  human.  We 
may  have  a  theory  that  God  must  have  guarded  them 
from  every  form  of  error,  but  the  Bible  itself  has  no 
such  theory;  and  we  must  try  to  make  our  theories 
of  inspiration  fit  the  facts  of  the  Bible  as  we  find 
them  lying  upon  its  pages." 

This  needs  no  comment;  and  as  it  fittingly 
closes  the  necessity  for  any  further  examination 
of  the  books  of  Chronicles,  I  will  now  invite  my 
reader  to  the  three  remaining  supposed  histor- 
ical books  of  the  Bible. 

EZRA— NEKEMJAH— ESTHER. 

On  these  books  I  shall  haA^e  but  few  words  to 
say.  The  two  former  are  rather  important  as 
they  give  us  a  little  history  not  so  fulh^  stated 
elsewhere.  The  reader  should  not  forget  that 
they  were  written  three  hundred  'years  before 
Christ,  and  relate  events  which  happened  at  least 
two  hundred  years  before  they  were  written. 
They  are  made  up  partiall3^  from  documents 
supposed  to  have  been  left  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

The  first  of  th'sse  two  books  tells  of  some  kind 
of  an  alliance  between  Cyrus,  King  of  Persia, 
and  the  Jews,  by  which  he  issued  a  decree  per- 
mitting all  the  Jews  who  wished  to  return  to 
their  own  land  to  do  so,  and  to  rebuild  their 
city  and  temple.  Although  this  decree  v^as  not 
compulsory,  under  it  Zerubabel  led  fifty  thousand 
of  the  Hebrews  back,  who  rebuilded  the  city  anc/ 


JOSHUA  TO  JOB.  159 

temple.  The  Samaritans,  who  by  the  way,  were 
mostly  Israelites,  interfered  with  and  interrupted 
this  work. 

By  and  bye,  under  the  inspiration  of  Haggai, 
and  Zecharrah,  the  prophets,  the  workers  resum- 
ed and  finished.  After  this  Ezra  finishes  the 
stor3^;  tells  of  his  compelling  the  Je-vs  to  put 
away  their  strange  wives  and  children,  etc. 
This  may  have  seemed  right  to  Ezra,  and  oth- 
ers of  that  day  but  when  looked  at  from  this 
distance  seems  exceedingly  immoral. 

The  book  of  Nehemiah  is  for  the  most  part  a 
kind  of  autobiography  of  the  gentleman  whose 
names  it  bears;  and  tells  of  events  which  occurred 
several  years  later  under  Artaxerxes.  Nehemiah 
hears  of  the  poverty  and  distress  at  Jerusalem, 
and  of  its  walls  having  been  broken  down,  and 
he  begs  the  privilege  of  going  up  there  to  repair 
the  walls,  the  city  and  the  temple.  This  was 
done  under  the  most  adverse  circumstances.  Ez- 
ra co-operated  with  Niehemiah;  congregations 
were  assembled,  and  Ezra  stood  on  a  pulpit  and 
read  the  law  to  them.  ''They,"  Ezra,  and  the 
other  priests,  ''read  in  the  book  of  the  k.  v  of  God 
distincth^,  and  gave  the  sense,  and  caused  them 
to  understand  the  reading."     See  Neh.   viii.  1-8. 

This  causing  them  to  understand  the  meaning, 
is,  by  some  supposed  to  be  translating  it  into 
their  acquired  language,  others  think  that  he 
and  the  c  .her  priests  merely  commented  as  they 
read.  At  any  rate  it  all  made  a  deep  impression 
on  the  people. 


160     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Though  these  books  were  partly  written  by 
the  men  whose  names  they  bear  they  were  re- 
revised  and  additions  made  at  a  later  date. 

The  events  occurred  under  C3^rus,  Darius  and 
Artaxierxes,  who  flourished  from  about  560  B 
C,  to  about  520,  B.  C.  In  one  of  the  genealo- 
gies a  high  priest  is  mentioned  who  was  the 
great  grandson  of  the  man  who  was  the  high 
priest  when  Nehemiah  went  to  Jerusalem. 

The  Bible  would  be  as  good  a  book,  if  not  bet- 
ter, with  the  book  of  Esther  left  out  of  it.  This 
book  is  cla:;sed  as  a  kind  of  historical  romance. 
It  is  supposed  to  be  put  into  the  Bible  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  the  origin  of  the  Jewish 
feast  of  Purim,  A  feast  celebrated  about  the 
first  of  March.  The  word  God  is  not  in  the 
Book;  the  morality  of  the  book  is  of  an  exceed- 
ingly bad  type  all  the  way  through.  Vashti,  the 
dethroned,  degraded  and  divorced  wife  of  King 
Ahazuerus,  that  is,  Artaxerxes,  is  the  only  noble 
character  in  the  whole  book.  When  she  refuses 
to  go  into  the  presence  of  the  king  and  his  fellow 
drunken  debauches  to  show  her  beauty  to  them 
she  simply  shows  h  r  self  respect,  and  probably 
knew  at  the  time  it  would  result  either  in  deg- 
radation, divorce  or  death.  After  she  is  driven 
away  from  her  home  and  country,  a  beautifiil. 
Jewess  by  the  name  of  Esther  takes  her  place. 
The  rest  of  the  story  is  too  well  known  to  need 
repeating  here: 

This  will,  at  least  for  the  present,  end  our  dis- 
sertations on  the  historical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

JOB  TO  ISAIAH. 

An  Unsolved  Problem— Old  Opinions  of  the  Book— Not  an 
Israelitish  Book— Prose  Prologue  and  Epilogue — How 
the  Book  is  Divided — Mr.  Chadwick's  Opinion — The 
Psalms — Reverence  once  Attached  to  them — Simply  a  Col- 
lection of  Hebrew  Hymns — How  they  are  Divided — Five 
Benedictions — David  Wrote  only  a  few  Psalms — Did  Dav- 
id Write  the  Fifty-First  Psalm?— Chadwick  on  the  Char- 
acter of  David— Some  of  the  Psalms  Written  During  the 
Babylonian  Captivity— A  Wicked  Psalm.- Many  Wise  and 
Good  Proverbs? — Sages  and  "Wisdom  Books" — Who  Wrt^te 
the  Proverbs? — Discourse  on  Wisdom — Some  Proverbs 
not  Wise— Bad  Advice  on  Drink— A  Virtuous  Woman- 
Book  of  the  Preacher— His  Efforts  for  Happiness— He 
Tries  Wisdom,  Mirth,  Wine  and  Wealth— All  Fail— Life 
Not  Worth  Living- Man  Only  a  Beast— Final  Solution- 
Mr.  Sunderland's  Opinion — Ecclesiastes  not  Written  by 
Soloman — The  Canticles — Many  Opinions — Insane  Head- 
ings of  Chapters— Not  in  Nchemiah's  Canon —  Resume'  oi 
the  Poem — Chadwick's  Comments. 

I  prefer  to  take  the  books  of  the  Bible  in  the 
order  in  which  we  have  them  rather  than  in  the 
order  in  which  they  were  written.  If  I  pursue 
that  order  the  book  of  Job  will  next  pass  under 
review.  In  some  senses  this  book  is  an  unsolved 
problem.     From  the  earliest  da3's  of  the  discus- 


162     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

sion  of  these  questions  -until  ^thin  the  last  fifty 
years  this  book  has  been  looked  upon  as  a  his- 
tory. Indeed  I  had  a  discussion  with  a  minister 
within  the  la  •:  year  who  treated  the  book  as  a 
history,  and  •  lio  seemed  perfectly  surprised  when 
I  •  told  him  it  was  only  a  didactic  or,  perhaps 
partially  a  dramatic  poem.  In  his  estimation 
that  was  infidelitv ,  and  not  very  thinly  disguis- 
ed. He  was,  however,  a  fossil.  Many  of  the 
learned  clergy  understand  this  matter  now. 

The  first  professor  I  ever  lieard  lecture  on  the 
book  of  Job,  said  it  was,  perhaps,  die  first  book 
ever  written;  it  was  certainly  by  far  the  oldest 
book  of  the  Bible.  He  argued  that  for  that  very 
reason  it  demanded  if  possible,  more  reverence 
than  any  other  book  of  the  Bible.  It  got  back 
nearer  to  God— nearer  to  the  original  condition 
of  man  than  any  other  portion  of  the  Bible.  He 
was  quite  sure  that  it  was  written  "by  old  Fath- 
er Abraham — the  * 'Father  of  the  Faithful,"  and 
was  therefore  literal  history — history  so  old  that 
nothing  in  the  world  either  confirmed  or  disput- 
ed it. 

Others  have  said  it  v^as  written  somewhere 
belvveen  Abraham  and  Muses;  and  still  others, 
that  it  was  written  by  Moses. 

In  the  early  days  of  my  ministry,  I  wondered 
why,  if  the  book  of  Job  w^as  so  old,  and  was 
generally  circulated  among  the  Hebrews  it  was 
never  quoted  in  other  books  of  the  Bible.  I  think 
the  word  Job  is  not  used  elsewhere  in  the  Bible 
until   you   come  to  the  book  of  Ezekiel,  which 


JOB  TO  ISAIAH.  163 

Speaks  of  Noah,  Daniel  and  Job.  Ezek.  xiv.  14-. 
Neither  does  Job  refer  to  any  other  books  or 
heroes  of  the  Bible.  This  Book  emanates  from 
the  land  of  Uz — wherever  that  may  be.  It  evi- 
dently was  not  written  by  a  Hebrew.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  Hebrews  was,  that  in  proportion  as 
men  and  women  were  good  and  true — in  propor- 
tion as  they  obeyed  Yahweh,  he  would  watch 
over  tliem  and  see  that  no  evil  befell  them.  A 
Psalmist  said:  "I  have  been  young  and  nov.^  am 
old,  yet  have  I  never  seen  the  righteous  forsaken 
nor  his  seed  begging  bread."     Psa.  xxxvii.  25. 

Not  so  w4th  the  hero  of  this  book.  His  ' 'com- 
forters" seemed  to  be  imbued  with  the  sentiment 
of  this  Psalm  and  tried  to  make  Job  believe  that 
his  sins  had  brought  on  him  all  the  calamities 
he  suffered.  He  indignantly  repels  this  attack, 
and  challenges  them  and  God  to  show^  where  he 
ever  w^ent  astray. 

The  book  opens  with  a  prose  introduction,  and 
closes  with  an  epologue  written  in  prose.  Critics 
are  inclined  to  think  the  prologue  and  epilogue 
were  added  long  after  the  book  itself  was  w^ritten. 

The  dialogue  part  of  the  book  is  divided  into 
three  parts,  and  has  six  speakers.  The  first  set 
of  speakers  are  Job,  his  three  "comforters,"  Eli- 
hu,  and  the  Lord.  In  the  first  series  Eliphaz, 
Bildad,  Zophar  and  Job  all  make  speeches.  This 
covers  the  ground  from  chapter  iv.  to  chapter  xiv. 
In  the  second  symposium  each  of  these  speakers 
makes  another  effort.  That  is  found  in  chapter 
XV.  and  xxi.  inclusive. 


164     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM^ 

In  the  third  part  Elihu  makfs  the  longest  and 
most  sensible  speech  there  is  in  the  book.  God 
follows  with  a  speech,  but  is  more  intent  on' 
describing  his  power  than  on  arguing  the  case 
Like  many  modern  spirits  he  uses  many  words 
but  adds  no  new  light  on  the  subject.  After  Job's 
answer,  the  whole  concludes  with  a  piece  of 
prose. 

I  cannot  get  my  own  consent  to  conclude  this 
without  making  a  rather  lengthy  extract  from 
Rev.  Mr.  Chad  wick.    He  says: 

''Some  have  argued  that  both  the  introduction  and 
the  conclusion  are  later  additions,  with  some  reason 
in  the  first  instance,  and  with  a  great  deal  in  the  sec- 
ond, which  gives  up  the  case  entirely  to  the  three 
friends  of  Job,  who  have  all  along  been  trying  to  put 
him  in  the  wrong.  Poetic  justice  is  done  him.  He 
gets  twice  as  man3'  sheep  and  oxen  and  camels  and 
she  asses  as  he  had  before,  and  seven  'sons  once; 
more  and  three  daughters — the  children,  let  us  hope, 
of  a  second  wife  of  more  agreeable  disposition  than 
the  first.  This  conclusion  certainly  has  the  appearance 
of  an  after-thought,  stuck  on  by  some  conveniently  or- 
thodox person.  But  there  is  less  agreement  among 
the  critics  about  this  than  about  the  speech  of  Elihu, 
for  reasons  which  appear  to  me  extremely  satisfactory. 
It  interrupts  the  natural  climax  of  the  poem.  Its  solu- 
tion of  the  question  in  dispute  is  not  that  of  Yahweh. 
It  is  an  advance  upon  the  solution  of  Job's  friends, 
but  it  is  also  an  advance  upon  the  solution  of  Yah- 
weh. If  the  poet  had  arrived  at  this  solution,  he 
would  probably  have  put  it  into  the  mouth  of  Yahweh 
instead  of  the    one   he   has   put   there.       Besides,  the 


JOB  TO  ISAIAH.  165 

•Speech  ot  Hliliu  has  pecuharites  of  style  which 
put  it  into  p(3st-cxilic  times,  a  hundred  j^ears  at 
least  after  the  remainder  of  the  dialogue."  —Bible  of 
Today,  pp.  145-146. 

THE  PSALMS. 

**To  make  the  Psalms  a  subject  of  critical  in- 
vestigation," sa3^s  a  late  writer,  * 'Seems  hardly 
less  a  breach  of  natural  piety  than  for  a  man  to 
peep  and  botanize  upon  his  mother's  grave." 
Both  the  Jews  and  Christians  have  ever  used  the 
Psalms  in  their  private  and  public  worship. 
Such  Psalms  as  the  xxiii.  ''The  Lord  is  my  shep- 
herd," will  always  justly  hold  a  sacred  place  in 
the  human  heart.  People  will  never  tire  of  set- 
ting to  music  and  carroling  some  of  those  beau- 
tiful sentiments. 

It  is  said  that  the  Psalms  were  once  held  in 
such  reverence  that  a  majority  of  Christians  com- 
mitted them  to  memory;  and  that  many  who 
could  not  repeat  another  passage  from  the  Bible 
could  correctly  quote  every  one  of  them. 

The  book  of  Psalms  is  simply  a  collection  of 
hymns  used  by  the  Hebrews  in  their  religious 
services.  I  said,  a  collection,  it  was  really  five 
collections  following  each  other,  and  finall}^  put 
together  in  a  book  as  our  "Gospel  Hymns,"  are 
today.  Thus  far  all  are  agreed.  The  first  col- 
lection includes  Psalms  one  to  forty-one.  The 
collectors  of  these  writings  were  some  times 
careless;  they  divided  the  ninth  Psalm  and  made 
two  of  it.    Thus  it  stands  as  Psa.  ix.  and  x.    The 


166     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

fourteenth  Psalm  is  inserted  the  scc(Mid  time  as 
the  fifty-third  Psahn. 

The  second  collection  of  Psalms  begins  with 
Psa.  xlii.  and  end  with  Psa.  Ixxii.  The  third 
collection  begins  wnth  Psa.  Ixxiii.  and  ends  with 
Psa.  Ixxxix.  The  fourth  collection  begins  wdth 
Psa.  xc.  and  ends  with  Psa.  cvi.  The  fifth  col- 
lection begins  with  Psa.  cvii.  and  ends  with  cl. 

Each  of  these  five  books  closes  with  a  benedic- 
tion. Let  me  quote  them:  xli.  13.  "Blessed  be 
the  Lord  God  of  Israel  from  everlasting,  and  to 
everlasting,  Amen,  and  Amen."  "Blessed  be  his 
glorious  name  forever  and  ever;  and  let  the  whole 
earth  be  filled  with  his  glory;  Amen  and  Amen." 

The  benediction  at  the  end  of  the  third  book  is, 
"Blessed  be  the  Lord  forevermore.  Amen  and 
Amen." 

That  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  book  is,  "Bles- 
sed be  the  Lord,  God  of  Israel,  from  CA^erlasting 
to  everlasting;  and  let  all  the  people  say  Amen. 
Praise  ye  the  Lord."  The  final  benediction  is,. 
"Let  ever3'thing  that  hath  breath  praise  the 
Lord.     Praise  ye  the  Lord." 

Up  to  within  a  few  3^ears  'when  the  question 
arose  as  to  w^ho  wrote  the  Psalms  the  answer 
always  was,  David.  Indeed,  manipulators  of  our 
Bible  have  set  David's  name  over  sevent^'-three 
of  the  Psalms.  Now  it  is  well  known  that  if  he 
wrote  an3^  of  them  he  did  not  w^rite  over  a  doz- 
en. Some  authors  say  eleven,  some  put  it  at  less 
than  that.  Many  deny  that  he  wrote  any  of 
them.      These  Psalms  over  which  we  read,    "A 


JOB  TO  ISAIAH.  167 

Psalm  of  David."  scholars  say  should  read  "A 
Psalm  to  David"  That  the  reading  is  better  no 
one  who  has  studied  the  matter  can  doubt. 
Many  of  the  Psalms  which  are  thus  b3^  headlines 
ascribed  to  David,  it  is  now  well  known  David 
did  not  write.  Some  of  them  were  written  after 
the  Babylonish  captivity,  or  at  least  during  that 
captivitA^  This  did  not  occur  until  several  hun- 
dred years  after  David's  death. 

If  there  is  one  Psalm  that  sounds  more  than 
any  .other,  as  though  David  ought  to  have  w^rit- 
ten  it,  it  is  the  fift^^-first.  It  not  only  sounds 
as  though  David  should  have  written  it,  but 
when  the  Bible-doctors  fixed  up  our  Bibles, 
they  put  in  the  heading,  "To  the  chief  Musician. 
A  Psalm  of  David,  when  Nathan  the  prophet 
came  unto  him,  after  he  had  gone  unto  Bath- 
sheba."  Now,  we  K:n(nv  that  David  could  not 
have  written  that  Psalm.  Verses  18,  19,  reads 
as  follows: 

"Do  good  ill  thy  good  pleasure  unto  Zion;  build  thou 
the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  Then  shalt  thou  be  pleased 
with  the  sacrifices  of  righteousness  with  burnt  offering 
and  whole  burnt  offering;  then  shall  they  offer  bullocks 
upon  thine  altar." 

The  fact  is,  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  were  not 
torn  down  until  four  hundred  years  after  David 
had  began  his  ''sleep  with  his  fathers."  The  al- 
tar on  which  sacrifices  were  offered  in  the  temple 
was  erected  long  after  David's  death.  It  was 
simpW  imagination  that  led  to  the  supposition 
that  David  wrote  that  Psalm.    It  could  not  have 


168     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

been  written  until  after  the  walls  of  Jerusalem 
were  thrown  down. 

The  one  hundred  and  thirty-seventh  Psalm  r^ads 
as  follows: 

"Cy  the  river  of  Babylon,  there  we  sat  down,  yea^ 
we  wept,  when  we  rememljered  Zion.  We  hanged  our 
harps  upon  the  willows  in  the  midst  thereof.  For  they 
that  carried  us  away  captive  required  of  us  a  song; 
and  they  that  wasted  us  required  of  us  mirth,  saying 
sing  us  one  of  the  songs  of  Zion.  How  shall  we  sing 
the  Lord's  songs  in  a  strange  land?  If  I  forget  thee, 
O,  Jerusalem,  let  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning.  If 
I  do  not  remember  thee,  let  my  tongue  cleave  to  the 
roof  of  my  mouth;  if  I  prefer  not  Jerusalem  above  my 
chief  joy.  Remember,  O,  Lord,  the  children  of  Edom 
in  the  day  of  Jerusalem;  who  said,  rase  it,  rase  it 
even  to  the  foundation  thereof.  0,  daughter  of  Baby- 
lon, who  art  to  be  destroyed;  happy  shall  he  be,  that 
rewardeth  thee  as  thou  hast  served  us.  Happy  shall' 
he  be  that  taketh  and  dasheth  thy  little  ones  against 
the  stones." 

All  this  occurred  when  tliey  were  in  Babylonish 
captivity.  They  were,  "by  the  rivers  of  Baby- 
lon." This  writer  was  ''among  the  captives.'* 
Those  who  had  vv^asted  them  ''required  of  them 
a  song."  But  there  they  were  "in  a  strange  land." 
How  could  they  sing  the  "Lord's  songs?"  Then, 
read  again,  the  prayer  for  Zion,  and  Jerusalem; 
and  the  maledictions  heaped  upon  "the  daught- 
ers of  Babydon."  This,  is  enough  to  show  that 
if  David  was  the  author  of  any  of  these  Psalms,, 
he  was  not  the  author  of  all  of  them.  Mr.  Chad- 
wick  thinks  that  the  Psalms  were  not  like  David 


JOB   TO  ISAIAH.  169 

at  all.  Possibly  the  one  hundred  and  ninth, 
which  the  heading  claims  that  David  wrote  was 
more  like  him  than  any  other.  A  part  of  it 
reads  as  follows: 

"Set  thou  a  wicked  man  over  him,  and  let  Satan 
stand  at  his  right  hand.  When  he  shall  be  judged,  let 
him  be  condemned;  and  let  his  prayer  become  sin.  Let 
his  days  be  few;  and  let  another  take  his  office.  Let 
his  children  be  fatherless,  and  his  wife  a  widow.  Let 
his  children  be  continually  vagabonds,  and  beg;  let  them 
seek  their  bread  also  out  of  their  desolate  places.  Let 
the  extortioner  catch  all  that  he  hath;  and  let  the 
stranger  spoil  his  labor.  Let  there  be  none  to  extend 
mercy  unto  him;  neither  let  there  be  any  to  favor  his 
fatherless  children.  Let  his  posterity  be  cut  off:  and, 
in  the  generation  following  let  their  name  be  blotted 
out."    Verses  6-13. 

If  the  word  Satan  were  not  in  that  perhaps 
Mr.  C.  would  admit  that  David  wrote  it.  But 
that  spoils  it.  David  could  not  use  a  word 
whicli  had  not  3'et  come  into  existence.  David 
never  having  been  in  Bab\don  where  Satan  was 
bom,  had  never  heard  of  His  Majesty.  Mr. 
Chadwick's  words  are  as  follows: 

"It  is  evident  that  we  get  nearest  to  David  in  the 
legends.  Drawing  out  our  conclusions  from  these 
legends,  we  find  that  David  was  a  man  of  splendid 
force  and  courage;  that  he  followed  up  successfully 
the  work  of  Saul  in  consolidating  the  wrangling 
tribes  into  a  single  nation;  that  he  could  love  as 
passionately  as  he  could  hate,  and  did  love  his  child- 
ren and  a  few  others  with  a  great  affection.  But  for 
all  his  physical  courage,  he  was  smitten  through  and 
through  with  moral  cowardice.    One  of  the  most  cun- 


170     THE   BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

ning,  he  was  also  one  of  the  most  treacherous  men, 
and  one  of  the  most  cruel.  He  put  the  captive  Ammon- 
ites 'under  saws  and  under  harrows  of  iron,  and 
made  them  pass  through  the  brick  kiln,'  that  is, 
roasted  them  alive.  'And  thus  did  he  unto  all  the 
cities  of  the  Ammonites.'  Joab,  who  had  fought  his 
hardest  battles  for  him,  and  done  his  dirtiest  work,  he 
hated,  and  yet  he  feared,  and  so— himself  afraid  to 
strike  at  him — arranged  his  murder  on  his  dying  bed. 
This  man  had  all  the  vices  of  a  Herod  and  Henry  the 
Eighth.  He  was  as  licentious  as  he  was  murderous 
and  cruel.  'A  man  after  God's  own  heart,' 
was  he?  'After  Yahweh's  own  heart,'  the  text 
should  read,  and  this  he  was,  his  Yahweli  being  such 
a  God  as  such  a  man  would  naturally  conceive." 

Before  closing  the  lesson  on  the  Psalms,  I 
might  mention  a  few  words  which  have  puzzled 
thousands  of  readers.  The  word,  '*Selah,"  is  a 
musical  term,  and  perhaps  signifies  what  the 
word  De  Capo,  now  signifies.  The  words, 
''Michtam,"  "Maschil,"  "Gittith,"  and  all  such 
untranslated  terms,  scholars  inform  us  are  put 
in  for  the  benefit  of  musicians. 

We  next  come  to  consider 

THE    BOOK     OF     PROVERBS. 

Whoever  wrote  the  so-called  Proverbs  of  Solo- 
mon  said  many  wise  things, — many  things  which 
should  be  committed  to  memory  and  carried  out 
in  daily  life.  Most  of  them  are  good  to  live, 
and  handy  to  use  almost  an3^where.  What  can 
be  wiser  than  some  of  the  following  statements, 
taken  at  random  from  this  book.  "He  that  ut- 
tereth  slander  is  a  fool."      "When  pride  cometh 


JOB  TO  ISAIAH.  171 

then  Cometh  shame;  but  with  the  lowly  is  wis- 
dom." "He  that  is  surety  for  a  stranger  shall 
smart  for  it  and  he  that  hateth  suretyship  is 
sure." 

On  liberality  we  find  the  following. 

"There  is  that  scattereth  and  yet  increaseth;  and 
there  is  that  withholdeth  more  than  is  meet;  but  it 
tendeth  to  poverty.  The  liberal  soul  shall  be  made  fat; 
and  he  that  watereth  shall  be  watered  also  himself.  He 
that  withholdeth  corn  the  people  shall  curse  him;  but 
blessings  shall  be  upon  the  head  of  him  that  selleth 
it."    Prov.  xi.  24-26. 

I  will  quote  a  few  more  at  random.  "Better 
is  a  little  with  righteousness  than  great  revenues 
without  right."  "Pride  goeth  before  destruction 
and  an  haughty  spirit  before  a  fall."  "He  that 
is  slow  to  anger  is  better  than  the  mighty;  and 
he  that  ruleth  his  spirit  than  he  that  taketh  a 
city."  "He  that  hath  knowledge  spareth  his 
words."  "He  that  answereth  a  matter  before 
he  heareth  it,  it  is  a  folly  and  a  shame  unto 
him."  "Wine  is  a  mocker;  strong  drink  is  raging; 
and  whosoever  is  deceived  thereby  is  not  wise." 
"To  do  justice  and  judgment  is  more  acceptable 
to  the  Lord  than  Sacrifice."  "Rejoice  not  when 
thine  enemy  falleth,  and  let  not  thine  heart  be 
glad  when  he  stumbleth."  "If  thine  enemy  be 
hungry  give  him  bread  to  eat;  and  if  he  be  thirs- 
ty give  him  water  to  drink."  "Let  another 
praise  thee,  and  not  thine  own  mouth;  a  strang- 
er and  not  thine  own  lips." 

These  wise  sayings  might  be  increased  indefin- 
itely.     There  are  many  proverbs  not  so  wise  as 


172     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

those  quoted.  It  makes  little  diilereriCe  who 
wrote  these  proYerbs  they  are  for  the  most  part 
wise. 

There  was  among  the  Jews,  as  in  other  nations 
a  class  of  men  known  as  sages,  who  wrote  out 
and  used  these  proverbs.  They  were  put  into 
books,  which  were  called  * 'Wisdom  Books." 
These  Proverbs  were  committed  to  memory  and 
used  as  mottoes  in  every  day  life.  It  is,  perhaps, 
safe  to  say  they  had  as  much  to  do  with  the 
daily  lives  of  the  people  as  had  the  words  of 
either  priest  or  prophet. 

Who  wrote  the  proverbs?  Nobody  knows;  un- 
doubtedly Solomon  wrote  some  of  them.  I  Kings 
iv.  32  says  of  Solomon:  *'And  he  spake  three 
thousand  Proverbs,  and  his  songs  were  one 
thousand  and  five." 

There  are  several  things  in  the  book  of  Pro- 
verbs of  which  it  is  claimed  that  Solomon  was 
the  author.  Prov.  i.  1,  introduces  the  book  by 
saying:,  "The  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  the  son  of 
David,  king  of  Israel."  Chapter  x.  introduces  the 
second  part  of  the  book  with  the  heading,  ''Pro- 
verbs of  Solomon.  Pro.  xxv.  1,  says:  "These 
are  also  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  which  the  men  of 
Hezekiah,  King  of  Judali,  copied  out." 

From  the  first  to  the  tenth  chapter  of  Proverbs 
is  one  continuous  discourse,  mainly  on  wisdom, 
its  value,  and  the  necessity  of  obtaining  it  at 
any  expense. 

It  is  not  known,  nor  does  it  matter  who  the 
author  of  that  discourse  is;  the  advice  is  good, 


JOB  TO  ISAIAH.  173 

and  the  sentiment  generally  wise;  perhaps  not 
wiser  than  many  of  the  sages  of  the  Persian  and 
Grecians  have  handed  down  to  posteritj-.  Yet  it 
would  be  well  for  every  young  man  to  read,  re- 
member and  act  upon  the  advice  here  given. 

The  next  thirteen  chapters,  beginning  \vith 
chapter  ten  contain  between  three  and  four  hun- 
dred miscellaneous  proverbs,  samples  of  which  I 
have  quoted.  The  most  of  these  Proverbs  are 
wise,  true  and  good.  There  are  exceptions. 
About  all  there  is  in  these  Proverbs  on  familj- 
government  had  better  have  been  left  unsaid.  I 
have  felt  the  rod  unjusth^  many  times  in  obedi- 
ence to  advice  m3'  parents  found  in  these  Prov- 
erbs. 

In  the  twenty-second  chapter  a  more  connected 
discourse  is  begun,  though  it  is  handed  out  in 
the  form  of  Proverbs.  This  ends  with  Prov.  xxiv. 
22.  In  verse  23,  it  seems  that  another  series  be- 
gins under  the  heading,  "These  things  also  be- 
long to  the  wise."  This  series  is  finished  in  this 
chcipter. 

In  chapter  xxv  begins  the  series  * 'Which  the 
men  of  Ilezekiah,  king  of  Judah,  .copied  out." 
These  sound  more  as  if  they  came  from  Solomon 
than  do  anj^  of  the  others.  They  go  to  chapter 
xxx.  This  chapter  purports  to  be  "the  words  of 
Agur,  the  son  of  Jakeh." 

Chapter  xxxi.  is  a  poem,  and  professes  to  be 
the  words  of  Lemuel,  the  prophecy  that  his 
mother  taught  him.  The  advice  given  in  this 
'hapter,  for  kings,  would  be  good  for  others  to 


174     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

follow  who  are  not  kings,  I  think  little  of  the 
advice  contained  in  verses  6  and  7. 

They  read  as  follows: 

"Give  strong  drink  unto  him  that  is  ready  to  perish 
and  wine  unto  those  that  be  of  heavy  hearts.  Let 
him  drink  and  forget  his  poverty,  and  remember  his 
misery  no  more." 

This  advice  has  led  many  a  poor  victim  to  a 
drunkard's  grave.  When  a  poor  man  drinks  until 
he  forgets  his  poverty,  he  generally  drinks  enough 
to  keep  himself  and  his  family  in  continual  pov- 
erty. 

From  verse  10,  to  the  close  of  the  chapter,  is 
the  description  of  "a  virtuous  woman."  By  the 
word  "virtuous,"  in  this  place  the  writer  means 
a  strong  woman,  and  one  who  does  her  whole 
duty.  I  wish  a  chapter  had  followed  it  on  the 
virtuous  man. 

Let  us  next  examine  the  book  of 

/  ECCLESIASTES. 

This  is  a  book  which  cannot  be  understood 
unless  taken  as  a  whole.  If  only  the  first  few 
chapters  are  read  the  reader  must  conclude  that 
the  writer  is  one  of  the  most  pessimistic  mater- 
ialists that  ever  put  ink  on  paper.  When  the 
book  is  all  taken  together,  the  reader  gets  a  dif- 
ferent impression. 

If  the  name  of  this  book  were  rendered  into 
English,  it  would  be,  ''The  Preacher."  In  this 
book  "The  Preacher,  the  son  of  David,"  starts 
out  in  search  of  happiness.  He  sees  generations 
coming  and  going,  yet  there  is  "toil  and  travail;" 


JOB  TO  ISAIAH.  175 

there  are  afflictions  in  the  world,  all  termina- 
ting in  death.  The  preacher  tries  several  plans 
to  remedj^  the  seeming  existing  evils  but  all  to 
no  purpose.  He  first  tries  wisdom,  but  it  fails 
to  bring  the  desired  happiness.  His  wisdom  only 
causes  him  to  see  and  feel  the  wrongs  and  mis- 
eries in  the  world  the  more;  so  he  concludes  that 
''he  that  increaseth  knowledge  increaseth  sor- 
row." Things  were  sadly  out  of  joint  and 
wisdom  enabled  him  to  see  and  feel  that  more 
thoroughly  but  failed  to  provide  a  remedy. 

He  next  tried  mirth;  that  also  failed.  With 
sorrow,  sufifering  and  death  in  the  world  mirth 
was  a  mockery.  He  then  tried  wine,  as  thous- 
ands had  done  before  him  and  as  thousands 
have  done  since.  This  was,  and  ever  will  be  a 
failure.  Next  he  tried  great  works,  erecting 
buildings,  and  making  gardens.  In  fact  he  tried 
everything  that  wealth  could  do,  but  all  was 
* 'vanity  and  vexation  of  spirit." 

"I  have  sought  round  this  verdant  earth  for 

unfading  joy; 
I  have  tried  every  source  of  mirth  but  all, 
all  will  cloy." 

This  preacher  finally  got  so  far  that  he  decided 
that  life  was  not  worth  living.  He  says,  ''there- 
fore I  hated  life;  because  the  work  that  is  done 
under  the  sun  is  grievous  to  me;  for  all  is  vanity 
and  vexation  of  spirit." 

It  is  while  in  this  condition  that  the  preacher 
comes  to  regard  man  as  a  beast.  "That  thej^ 
might    see    that    they,    themselves    are    beasts." 


176      THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

**They  die  like  beasts,  and  who  knoweth  the 
spirit  of  man  that  goeth  upward,  and  the  Spirit 
of  the  beast  that  goeth  downward  to  the 
earth?" 

This  preacher  also  had  a  view  of  the  **oppres- 
vsions  that  were  done  under  the  sun,  and  the 
tears  of  such  as  was  oppressed,  and  they  were 
without  comforters." 

This  caused  him  to  'Upraise  the  dead."  That 
is,  to  congratulate  the  dead.  He  found  more 
contentment  among  the  people  who  had  little 
or  nothing  than  among  the  rich  and  great. 
While  on  this  subject  he  gets  off  several  wise 
proverbs,  such  as  "Better  is  a  poor  and  wise 
child  than  an  old  and  foolish  king,  who  will  no 
more  be   admonished."     Ecc.  iv,  13. 

Many  of  the  Proverbs  in  this  sermon  con- 
tain good  and  wholesome  advice.  He  finally 
solves  all,  and  decides  that  the  best  of  all 
things  is  to  ''Remember  now  thy  Creator  in 
the  da3^s  of  thy  youth,  while  the  evil  da3^s  come 
not."     "E'er  the  mourners  go  about  the  streets." 

"Or  ever  the  silver  cord  be  loosed,  or  the  golden 
bowl  be  broken,  or  the  pitcher  broken  at  the  ff.un- 
tain,  or  the  wheel  broken  at  the  cistern.  Then  shall 
the  dust  return  to  the  dust  as  it  was;  and  the  spirit 
shall  return  to  God  who  gave  it."     Ecc.  xii.  6,  7. 

He  finally  sums  all  up  in  the  following: 

"Let  us  hear  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter; 
fear  God  and  keep  his  commandments;  for  this  is  the 
whole  duty  of  man.  For  God  shall  bring  every  work 
into  judgment,  with  every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be 
good  or  evil."    Ecc.  xii.  13,  14. 


JOB   TO  ISAIAH.  177 

Thus  when  I  take  the  whole  book  as  one  ser- 
mon I  can  see  that  the  design  of  this  book  was 
to  lead  the  readers  through  this  labyrinth  of 
trouble  and  sorro^w,  but  to  give  the  whole,  in  a 
few  words,  an  optimistic  ending.  Man  is  here 
for  experience;  in  that  experience  is  much  sor- 
row— sorrow  which,  wisdom,  mirth,  wealth  and 
wine  are  powerless  to  overcome,  but,  eventually 
the  spirit  shall  return  enriched  by  earth  experi- 
ence, let  us  hope,  to  God  ^who  gave  it. 

I  am  not  astonished  that  this  book  had  sa 
hard  a  time  to  get  its  place  in  the  Bible;  and 
that  finally  it  got  in  by  only  one  vote. 

Mr.  Sunderland,  who  sees  nothing  but  pessi- 
mism in  the  book,  says: 

"It  is  one  of  the  unaccountable  things  about  the 
Bible  that  men  could  ever  have  received  this  book 
into  the  canon  as  the  inspired  word  of  God,  and  at 
the  same  time  have  kept  out  a  book  like  the  Apocry- 
phal 'Wisdom  of  Solomon,'  with  its  broad  and  Catho- 
Hc  Spirit,  and  its  high  views  of  God  and  life  and  Im- 
mortality."   — Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Bible,  p.  116. 

The  word  Ecclesilastes  is  the  Greek  word  for 
preacher.  In  the  Septuagint  the  name  of  the 
book  is  the  same  as  in  our  language.  It  was 
probably  originally  written  in  Greek  about  three 
hundred  years  before  the  Christian  Era,  by  some 
one  who  used  Solomon's  name  as  others  used 
other  names,  to  make  his  work  popular.  The 
writer  referred  to  himself  as  being  ''the  son  of 
David,  king  of  Jerusalem."  It  would  have  been 
quite  unnecessary  for  Solomon  to  have  said  chat. 


178     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

A  later  writer  would  be  more  likely  to  have 
committed  such  an  error.  As  Solomon  was  the 
only  son  of  David  who  was  ever  king  of  Jeru- 
salem he  would  not  have  needed,  in  his  day,  to 
have  thus  introduced  himself. 

Again,  in  chapter  i.  12,  this  writer  says:  "I, 
the  preacher,  was  king  over  Israel,  in  Jerusalem." 
This  v^riter  forgot  that  Solomon  ^vas  never  king 
anyv^rhere  else,  and  that  as  long  as  he  lived  he 
was  king  in  Jerusalem.  So  he  could  not  have 
said  "I  was  king  in  Jerusalem;"  but,  if  he  had 
said  anything  about  it  he  would  have  said  *'I 
am  king  in  Jerusalem." 

Again,  he  says  in  verse  16,  **I  have  gotten 
more  wisdom  than  all  that  were  before  me."  A 
wise  man  ^would  not  have  said  that;  the  state- 
ment, itself  would  cause  sensible  people  to  look 
upon  him  as  possessing  more  egotism  than  wis- 
dom.   Rev.  Mr.  Gladden  says: 

''The  only  son  of  David  who  was  ever  king  in  Jeru- 
salem was  Solomon;  was  Solomon  the  author  of  this 
book?  This  is  the  apparent  claim;  the  question  is 
whether  we  have  not  here,  as  in  the  case  of  Daniel, 
a  book  put  forth  pseudonymously;  whether  the  author 
does  not  personate  Solomon,  and  speak  his  message 
through  Solomon's  lips.  That  this  is  the  fact  modem 
•scholars  almost  unanimously  maintain.  ♦  *  *  More 
important  and  indeed  perfectly  decisive  is  the  fact 
that  the  book  is  fall  of  Chaldaisms,  and  that  the 
Hebrew  is  the  later  Hebrew,  of  the  days  of  Ezra  and 
Neher.iiah,  Daniel  and  Esther.  It  could  not  have  been 
written  by  Solomon,  any  more  than  the  'Id3^1s  of  the 
King,'  could    have    been  written  by  Edmund  Spencer. 


JOB   TO  ISAIAH.  179 

There    are    those,  of    course,  who    maintain    that  the 
book  was  written  by  Solomon;  just  as  there  are  those 
who  still  maintain  that  the    sun    revolves  around  the 
earth."    —Who  Wrote  the  BibleF   pp.  184, 185. 
THE  SONG  OF  SONGS. 

There  is  still  one  more  book  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ascribed  to  Solomon.  It  is  the  book  which 
calls  itself  ''The  Song  of  Songs,  Which  is  Solo- 
mon's." There  is  no  book  in  the  Bible  concern- 
ing which  a  greater  variety  of  opinion  has  been 
expressed,  than  this  little  Canticle.  Archdeacon 
Farrar  has  collected  the  following  list  of  opin- 
ions as  to  what  the  book  means. 

"It  represents,  say  the  commentators,  the  love  of 
God  for  the  congregation  of  Israel.  It  relates  to  the 
history  of  the  Jews  from  the  Exodus  to  the  Messiah; 
it  is  a  consolation  to  afflicted  Israel;  it  is  an  occult 
history';  it  represents  the  union  of  the  soul  with  the 
body,  or  of  the  material  with  the  active  intellect;  it 
is  the  conversation  of  Solomon  and  Wisdom;  it  de- 
scribes the  love  of  Christ  for  the  church;  it  is  histori- 
cally prophetic;  it  is  Solomon's  thanksgiving  for  a 
happy  reign;  it  is  a  love-song  unworthy  of  any  place 
in  the  canon;  it  treats  of  man's  reconciliation  to  God; 
it  is  a  prophecy  of  the  Church  from  the  Crucifixion 
till  after  the  Reformation;  it  is  the  anticipation  of  the 
Apocalypse;  it  is  the  seven  days  of  Epithalamium  on 
the  marriage  of  Solomon  with  the  daughter  of  Phar- 
aoh; it  is  a  magazine  for  direction  and  consolation 
under  every  condition;  it  treats  in  hierogl^-phics  of 
the  sepulchre  of  the  Savior,  his  death  and  the  Old 
Testament  Saints;  it  refers  to  Hezekiah  and  the  Ten 
Tribes;  it  is  written  in  glorification  of  the  Virgin 
Mary." 


180     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

These  interpretations  show  how  plainly  Zions' 
Watchmen  "see  Eye  to  Eye."  It  illustrates  the 
^general  guess  work  in  interpreting  the  Bible. 

If  anything  further  is  needed  to  show  the  w41d 
guessing  of  those  who  furnish  a  knowledge  of 
the  Bible  to  the  people  it  can  be  found  in  the 
headings  to  the  chapters  of  this  book.  No  in- 
sane person  could  haA^e  been  wilder  in  his  guesses 
than  are  all  these  headings.  In  my  Oxford  Bible 
;Some  of  the  headings  are  as  follows: 

"1 — The  Church's  love  unto  Christ.  5 — She  confess- 
eth  her  deformity,  7 — and  priiycth  to  be  directed  to 
his  flock.  8 — Christ  dirceterh  lier  to  the  she])herd's 
tents;  9— and  shewin-;-  his  h)ve  to  her  giveth  her  gra- 
4:ioiis  promises.  12 — The  Church  and  Christ  coiigratu- 
^te  one  another." 

There  are  seven  of  these  chapters,  not  one  of 
-which  ever  thought  or  spoke  a  word  about 
Christ  or  the  church;  and  yet,  before  them,  there 
is  in  the  aggregate  seven  times  as  much  non- 
.sense  put  in  by  these  Oxford  professors  as  I 
have  copied  from  the  first  one.  No  wonder  the 
world  has  become  ashamed  of  the  church's 
linowdedge  and  interpretations  of  the  Bible. 

Let  us  return  to  the  book  of  Canticles.  This 
book  was  not  received  in  the  canon  until  in  the 
second  century  before  Christ;  then  it  got  in  only 
on  the  merits  of  its  preface.  ''The  Song  of 
Songs,  which  is  Solomon's."  Nehemiah,  who 
<!ollected  a  library,  or  formed  a  canon,  if  he  ever 
lieard  of  the  book  rejected  it.  The  fact  is,  it 
^was  not  written  in  his  day. 


JOB  TO  ISAIAH.  181 

The  cntkrtsms  of  this  day  all  tend  in  the  same 
direction;  that  is,  that  this  is  a  poem  of  the 
natural  human  love  of  a  young  girl  for  a  young' 
shepherd,  to  whom  she  was  engaged.  In  lan- 
guage hardly  allowable  in  this  northern  climate, 
and  in  this  age  of  civilization,  she  is  represented 
as  declaring  her  love  for  this  shepherd  boy  who- 
is  busy  with  his  sheep. 

Next,  Solomon  is  represented  to  make  a  cap- 
tire  of  her  with  a  desire  to  add  her  to  his  harem 
of  wives — he  will  make  her  his  favorite.  He 
uses  all  his  flattery;  his  women  join  him  in  this; 
all  to  no  avail.  She  flees  to  her  shepherd  lover 
to  whom  she  is  united.  Now  if  the  student  will 
read  his  poem  with  this  idea,  and  '  make  Solo- 
mon in  this  instance,  one  of  the  heroes  of  the 
dramatic  writer,  he  will  find  that  neither  Solo- 
mon nor  the  poem  are  as  bad  as  has  been  sup- 
posed. 

Indeed  the  equal  of  this  as  a  dramatic  poem 
is  not  elsewhere  found  in  the  Bible,  yet  wdth 
the  little  understanding  the  world  has  had  of 
such  poetrv^  our  Bibles  would  have  been  much 
better  books  if  this  poem  had  been  omitted.  So 
prone  have  people  been  to  see  only  the  baser 
side  of  this  poem  that  Dr.  Adam  Clark,  a  Metho- 
dist Commentator,  regretted  its  demoralizing  in- 
fluence upon  his  brethren.  Some  Commentators 
have  said  that  notwithstanding  the  high  inspi- 
ration of  this  poem  it  should  never  be  read  by 
any  one  under  thirty  years  old.  On  this  poem 
Mr.  Clixidwick  has  the  following: 


182     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

"The  Song  of  Songs  needs  no  apologj^  for  its  char- 
acter, or  for  its  appearance  in  the  Old  Testament 
Canon.  It  needs  no  Solomonic  authorship  or  alle- 
gorical interpretation  to  defend  its  claim.  It  can 
afford  to  stand  on  its  own  merit.  It  has  been  a 
favorite  subject  of  attack  with  the  Voltairean  school 
of  critics.  It  has  been  assailed  as  grossly  sensuous; 
but  it  is  not  so  in  realit^^  Considering  the  time 
when  it  was  written,  and  that  it  is  an  oriental 
poem,  its  imagery  is  singularly  pure.  And  in  its 
central  purpose  it  is  the  peer  of  any  book  from 
Genesis  to  Revelation.  It  celebrates  a  fidelity  so  per- 
fect; that  not  even  the  most  splendid  king  of  Is- 
rael, with  all  his  gifts  and  blandishments  at  his 
command,  could  swerve  the  Shulamite  maiden  from 
her  fond  allegiance  to  her  rustic  lover.  It  is  a  poor 
business  throwing  dirt  at  such  a  book  as  this." 
—Bible  of  To-Day,  pp.  144,  145. 

This  brings  us  to  a  close  of  what  might  be 
c"lled  the  sage  writings  of  the  Bible.  One  more 
department  of  the  Old  Testament  writings  must 
pass  under  review,  before  we  undertake  to 
show  what  light  the  Higher  Criticicm  throws 
on  The  New  Testament. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

HA  YE  THE    PREDICTIONS   OF  THE 

PROPHETS  BEEN  FULFTLI.ED? 

The  word  Prophet;  What  does  it  mean?— Rev.  R.  Hebei 
Newton  on  Prophecy— A  Medium  of  anj-  kind  is  a  Proph- 
et—Old Testament' Meaning  of  the  Word— Did  Prophe- 
cy Fail?— How  Prophesying  is  Done— Providence  Journal 
on  Spirituahsm— Jesus'  Failures  in  Prognostication- 
Failure  of  the  Resurrected  Jesus'  Predictions— Other  Mis- 
takes made  by  the  World's  Supposed  Savior— David's 
Throne— It  is  to  be  Occupied  by  David's  Sons  as  long  as 
Sun  or  Moon  Exists— Examination  of  Supposed  Fulfilled 
Prophecies— What  it  takes  to  fulfill  a  Prophecy— Mistakes 
of  the  New  Testament  in  Quoting  and  Applying  the  Old 
—The  Virgin  Born  Son— Paine  on  Prophecy— Ahaz  Con- 
quered—Was Jesus  to  be  Bom  in  Bethlehem?— Several 
star-announced  Gods— Was  Jesus  called  out  of  Egypt?— 
Rachel  Weeping— Nazarite  or  Nazarene— Did  Jesus  Die  in 
Fulfillment  of  Prophecy?— Were  the  Disciples  Armed  with 
Swords?— Who  Bought  that  Potters'  Field'--How  did 
Jesus  Die?— Was  the  Veil  rent  in  Twain?- Did  the  Dead 
come  out  of  their  Graves?— Edward  Gibbon  on  these 
Phenomena— A  few  of  the  Fulfilled  Biblical  Predictions— 
The  Serpent's  Prophecy— That  made  by  the  Woman  of 
Endor— Some  True  Prophecies  not  in  the  Bible. 

The  meaning  of  the  words  prophet  and  prophe- 
cy has  in  the  last  t\YO-hundred  years  undergone 
a  great  change— a  change  which  has  greatly  in- 


184     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

jured  the  reputations  of  the  prophets.  It  is  now 
supposed  that  the  duty  of  the  prophets  was  to 
correctly  foretell  future  events;  and  as  the  sup- 
posed predictions  of  these  men  have  not  been 
fulfilled  in  the  sense  expected,  the  reputations  of 
those  who  made  the  supposed  predictions  have 
suffered. 

A  prophet  is  one  who  speaks  for  another — one 
T^ho  goes  to  sinners — especially  those  who  occu- 
py high  places,  and  points  out  their  sins  and 
the  probable  results.  No  true  biblical  prophet, 
when  correctly  interpreted  ever  attempted  to 
point  out  the  distant  future,  though  some  of  the 
oldest  of  them  have  been  tortured  into  telling 
definite^  of  the  street  cars  which  ''shall  seem 
like  torches,  and  run  like  the  lightnings."  See 
Nahum  ii.  4.  The  interpretation  of  this  is  as 
wild  as  biblical  interpretations  generally  are. 

Whenever  a  prophet  attempted  to  describe  the 
distant  future  he  has  been  mistaken.  Rev.  R. 
Heber  Newton  never  spoke  a  truer  word  than 
when  he  said:  ''Every  prophet  who  goes  beyond 
ethical  and  religious  instruction,  and  ventures 
into  prediction,  makes  mistakes,  and  leaves  hi-s 
errors  recorded  for  our  warning."  Again  on 
page  97  of  his  "Right  and  Wrong  Uses  of  the 
Bible"  he  says: 

"In  these  predictions  they  were  often  mistaken;  near- 
ly as  often  in  error  as  in  the  right.  We  seldom  hear 
of  these  unfulfilled  prophecies,  but  they  are  in  your  Bi- 
bles. They  should  teach  you,  that  which  the  prophets 
tried  so  hard  to  teach  their  own  contemporaries,  that 


HAVE  THE  PROPHECIES  BEEN  FULFILLED?  185 

the  essential  distinction  of  the  true  prophet  was  not 
that  he  predicted  the  future,  for  this  the}-  scornfully 
left  to  the  false  prophets,  the  oracles  of  the  pagan  Jews, 
but  that  they  foretold  the  inner  mind  and  will  of  God, 
read  the  'laws  mighty  and  brazen'  which  constitute 
the  essential  nature  of  the  Most  High  and  held  the  su- 
picme  felicit3'  of  man.  I  believe  I  know  of  no  one  pas- 
sage of  the  prophets  which  can  be  certainly  said  to 
point  to  any  event  beyond  the  near  future  of  the 
writer." 
Once  more  on  pages  100-101  he  says: 
"If  the  dear  Christ's  throne  stood  on  any  such  flim- 
sy basis  of  prophecy  as  men  have  built  up  beneath  it, 
then  when  the  underpinnings  came  tumbling  out,  as 
today  they  are  doing,  we  might  fear  that  His  author- 
ity was  dropping  in  with  them;  that  no  longer  we 
w-ere  to  call  him  Master  and  King." 

When  switched  off,  it  was  my  intention  to  try 
to  show  you  the  meaning  of  the  w^ords  prophet 
and  prophecy.  A  prophet  is  defined  in  the 
''Helps,"  in  the  Oxford  Bibles,  also  in  Webster, 
as  being  ''one  who  speaks  for  another".  He  is 
always  a  medium,  and  as  Mr.  Newton  intimates, 
seldom  indulges  in  predictions.  When  the  Jews 
said  to  Jesus,  "Prophecy  unto  us,  thou  Christ, 
who  it  was  that  smote  thee;"  (Alatt.  xxvi.  68.) 
They  did  not  mean  to  ask  him  to  fortell  who 
should  hit  him  at  some  future  time.  The  thing 
they  wanted  was  to  test  his  mediumship.  It 
meant,  "You  are  now  blindfolded,  prove  to  us 
that  you  can  see  without  the  use  of  your  eyes." 

Whe  Jesus  fed  the  multitude  with  five  loaves 
of  bread,  and  two  little  fishes,  they  said,  "He  is 


186     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

a  prophet."  That  is,  a  medium.  Seejno.  vi.  14. 
Surely  there  was  nothing  like  prediction  in  feed- 
ing the  multitude. 

In  Luke  xxiv.  19,  the  disciples  in  talking 
about  Jesus  to  a  supposed  stranger,  said:  **Con- 
cerning  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  which  was  a  prophet 
mighty  in  deed  and 'in  word  before  God  and  all 
the  people." 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  it  was  not  predictions  but 
deeds  and  words  that  made  Jesus  a  prophet.  In- 
deed when  Jesus  attempted  to  prophecy  in  the 
sense  of  predicting  the  future,  he  failed,  as  will 
be  shown. 

In  the  fourth  chapter  of  John,  Jesus  clairvoy- 
antly  correctly  reads  the  Samaritan  woman's 
past— not  her  future.  This  causes  her  to  say  in 
verse  19,  "Sir,  I  perceive  that  thou  art  a  pro- 
phet." 

In  John  ix.  17,  when  Jesus  opened  the  blind 
man's  eyes,  and  the  man  was  asked  his  opinion 
as  to  how  Jesus  did  it,  he  answered,  *'He  is  a 
prophet."— That  is,  he  is  a  medium. 

I  have  made  this  argument  before  now,  and 
have  been  answered:  ''Yes,  that  is  the  New  Test- 
ament meaning  of  the  word  prophet,  but  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  word  always  meant  one  who 
predicts  the  future." 

"And  thou  shalt  speak  tinto  him,  atid  put  words 
in  his  mouth;  and  I  will  be  with  thy  mouth,  and 
with  his  mouth  and  will  teach  you  what  ye  shall  do. 
And  he  shall  be  thy  spokesman  unto  the ,  people; 
and  he  shall  be  unto  thee  instead  of  a  mouth,  and 
thou  shall  be  unto  him  instead  of  a  God." 


HAVE  THE   PROPHECIES   BEEN  FULFILLED?    187 

x-Iere  Moses  was,  as  is  declared  many  times  in 
the  Bible,  the  prophet  of  God.  He  spoke  Yah- 
weh's  words.  Aaron  was  Moses'  prophet,  speak- 
ing Moses'  words.  On  this  point  see  Ex.  vii.  1, 
which  says: 

"And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  see,  I  have  made 
tliee  a  god  to  Pharaoh;  and  Aaron,  thy  brother,  shall 
be  thy  prophet." 

I  will  close  this  department  of  my  subject  with 
a  quotation  from  Mr.  Gladden.  On  pp.  109-110 
of  his  ''Who  Wrote  the  Bible,"  he  sa^^s: 

"The  predictive  function  of  the  prophet  is  not,  then, 
the  onl3',  nor  the  prominent  feature  of  his  work.  By 
far  the  larger  portion  of  the  prophetic  utterances  were 
concerned  with  the  present,  and  made  no  reference  to 
the  future. 

"The  prophet  exercised  his  office  in  many  waj-s. 
Moses  was  a  prophet,  the  first  and  greatest  of  all  the 
prophets;  but  we  have  from  him  few  predictions;  he 
interpreted  the  will  of  God  in  natural  laws.  Samuel 
was  a  great  prophet;  but  Samuel  was  not  emploj-ed 
in  foretelling  future  events;  he  sought  to  know  the  will 
of  God,  that  he  might  administer  the  affairs  of  the 
Jewish  commonwealth  in  accordance  with  it.  Elijah 
and  Elisha  were  great  prophets,  but  they  were  not 
prognosticators;  thej-  were  preachers  of  righteousness 
to  kings  and  people,  and  they  delivered  their  message 
in  a  way  to  make  the  ears  of  those  who  heard  to 
tingle.  And  this,  for  all  the  prophets  who  succeeded 
them,  was  the  one  great  business.  The  ethical  func- 
tion of  these  men  of  God  came  more  and  more  dis- 
tinctly into  view." 

Before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  the  writ- 
ings of  the  biblical  prophets  from  the  standpoint 


188     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

of  the  Higher  Criticism,  I  must  fulfill  a  promise 
made  in  answer  to  an  oft  repeated  request  to 
say  something  about  the  fulfillment  of  the  prog- 
nostications of  these  gentlemen;  also  to  offer  a 
few  thoughts  in  proof  of  the  fact  that  the  gen- 
eral character  of  the  prophets  will  not  more 
than  balance  that  of  the  average  man  of 
to-day.  First,  I  must  say  that  the  prophets 
were  not  so  generally  mistaken  as  those  are  who 
undertake  to  explain  their  words. 

I  doubt  very  much  whether  there  is  a  predic- 
tion in  the  Bible  which,  when  rightly  interpret- 
ed refers  to  the  distant  future.  An  examination 
of  the  prophecies  themselves  is  the  only  way  to 
learn  the  truth  about  that  matter.  I  will  ex- 
amine prophecies  which  are  out  and  out  failures, 
and  then  those  which  it  is  supposed  met  with 
an  absolute  fulfillment.  First,  let  us  take  up 
the 

ABSOLUTE  FAILURES    IN  PROPHECY. 

The  old  gentleman  after  whom  I  was  named, 
knew  so  many  false  prophets  and  so  many  pre- 
tenders to  the  gift  of  prophecy,  that,  just  before 
his  death,  he  told  his  friends  how  to  prove 
whether  a  prophet  was  true  or  false.  In  Deut. 
xviii.  22,  he  said:  ''When  a  prophet  speaketh 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  if  the  thing  follow  not,, 
nor  come  to  pass,  that  is  the  thing  which  the 
Lord  hath  not  spoken,  but  the  prophet  hath 
spoken  it  presumptuously;  thou  shalt  not  be  afraid 
of  him." 

If  the  Bible   prophets  were  tried    by  that  rule. 


HAVE  THE  PROPHECIES  BEEN   FULFILLED?    189 

many   of  t\iem,  in    fact    all    of  them,  would   be 
weighed  m  the  balances  and  found  wanting. 

In  eveiy  age  of  the  world  when  prophets  have 
simpl3"  looked  at  the  results  of  certain  actions, 
they  have  judged,  as  it  were,  from  cause  to  effect. 
In  such  cases  they  have  many  times  prognosti- 
cated correcxly.  We  have  many  prophets  of  both 
evil  and  good  to-day.  Those  in  sympathy  with 
our  national  administration,  as  -well  as  persons 
opposed  to  it,  have  tried  to  foretell  what  the 
results  of  certain  movements  would  be.  It  is 
needless  to  say  that  at  least  one  half  of  the 
prognosticators  are  guessing  wild.  It  will  in- 
deed be  strange  if  some  ef  the  numerous  shades 
of  opinion  which  are  being  expressed  concerning 
the  future  of  this  Government  and  others  are  not 
fulfilled.  Yet,  of  all  the  prophets  foretelling  the 
outcome  of  certain  movements  none,  perhaps,  ex- 
cept a  few  Spiritualist  mediums  claim  to  have 
any  more  inspiration  than  is  developed  by  daily 
occurring  events.  When  this  \vas  not  the  case 
with  the  prophets  of  old  they  generally  left  their 
unfulfilled  predictions  as  monuments  of  the  folly 
of  trjang  to  peer  into  the  future. 

Not  long  since  the  Providence  Journal  had  an 
editorial  diatribe  against  Spiritualism.  In  speak- 
ing of  frauds,  fakes  and  mediumistic  failures,  it 
argued  that  if  one  fraud,  failure  or  fake  could 
be  found  that  was  sufficient  to  relegate  all 
Spiritualism  to  Pluto's  domains.  It  argued  that 
if  one  fraud  or  failure  could  be  found  then  all 
was   false.    In   the    course    of   its    argument   it 


190     THE   BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

quoted  the  old  Latin  proverb:  '^Falsus  in  uno 
falsus  in  omnibus.'^  When  rendered  into  EngHsh 
that  means:  ''If  SpirituaHsm  is  false  in  one 
thing  it  is  false  in  all."  It  must  be  acknowl- 
edged that  that  is  rather  a  summary  way  of 
proving  Spiritualism  is  all  false.  It  means  that 
if  anybody  ever  told  a  lie,  he  could  never  after- 
ward tell  the  truth;  and,  in  fact,  that  he  had 
never  before  told  the  truth.  How  would  Bible 
prophets  stand  if  judged  by  that  rule?  Let  us 
see. 

Everybody  I  think  w^ill  admit  that  the  only 
prophecy  in  the  book  of  Jonah  failed  to  meet  a 
fulfillment.  This  poor,  over-zealous  prophet  plods 
his  weary  way  through  the  city,  where  there 
were  over  a  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  souls 
who  did  not  know  their  right  hand  from  their 
left,  and  proclaimed  a  message  from  the  Lord, 
"Yet  forty  days  and  Nineveh  shall  be  over- 
thrown." I  do  not  propose  to  comment  on  this 
at  present.  Those  who  wish  a  thorough  an- 
alysis of  the  book  of  Jonah  are  advised  to  pur- 
chase a  book  by  W.  H.  Bach,  entitled,  "Big 
Bible  Stories." 

As  before  hinted,  even  Jesus  often  missed  it  in 
his  predictions. 

His  prediction  in  Matthew  xxiv,  especially  in 
verses  29-34,  fully  justifies  Rev.  R.  Heber  New- 
ton's remarks  on  the  failure  of  prophetic  an- 
nouncements. 

"Immediately  after  the  tribulation  of  those  days 
-V;n   the    sun    l^**    darkened,  and    the   moon  shall  not 


HAVE  THE  PROPHECIES  BEEN  FULFILLED?    191 

give  her  light,  and  the  stars  shall  fall  from  heaven  and 
the  powers  of  the  heavens  shall  be  shaken;  and  then 
shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  heaven; 
and  then  shall  all  the  tribes  of  the  earth  mourn,  and 
they  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in  the  clouds  of 
heaven  with  power  and  great  glory.  And  he  shall  send 
his  angels  with  a  great  sound  of  a  trumpet,  and  they 
shall  gather  together  his  elect  from  the  four  winds,  from 
one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other.  Now  learn  a  parable 
of  the  fig  tree;  when  his  branch  is  yet  tender,  and 
putteth  forth  leaves,  ye  know  that  summer  is  nigh;  so 
likewise  ye,  when  ye  see  all  these  things,  know  that  it 
is  near  even  at  the  doors;  verily  I  say  unto  you,  this 
generation  shall  not  pass  till  all  these  things  be  ful- 
filled." 

That  generation  has  gone,  and  more  than  half 
a  hundred  have  followed  it,  and  yet  the  things 
here  predicted  have  not  come  to  pass.  The  only 
charitable  thing  to  say  is,  that  Jesus  was  mis- 
taken. 

Jesus  was  here  supposed  to  have  referred  to 
Certain  tribulations  w^hich  were  to  come  on  some- 
body. Christians  do  not  agree  as  to  who  the 
people  were.  Tribulations  can  apply  an3'where. 
At  present  they  may  apply  to  the  inhabitants  of 
the  Phillipine  Islands.  Less  than  two  years  ago 
the3'  could  have  applied  to  Cuba.  But  where  does 
the  darkening  of  the  sun  apply?  There  have 
been  innumerable  local  darkenings,  but  there 
never  has  been  a  time  when  the  sun  has  been  so 
darkened  that  nobody  could  see  it.  When  did 
the  stars  fall?  To  what  planet  did  they  fall? 
Not  one  of  them  ever  hit  this  earth  in  its  fall. 


192      THE   BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

The  climax  comes  in  the  generation  which  was 
then  upon  the  earth.  Every  one  of  them  has 
gone  over  1800  years,  and  yet  the  predictions 
are  not  fulfilled, 

All  this  is  proof  that  if  Jesus  intended  this  as 
literal  history  in  advance  he  was,  like  others 
who  ventured  to  describe  things  in  advance,  mis- 
taken. 

The  same  thing  may  be  said  of  the  prophecy 
our  Bible  represents  the  arisen  Jesus  to  have 
made  in  Mark  xvi.  17,  18,  Avhich  reads  as  fol- 
lows: 

"And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe;  in. 
my  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils;  they  shall  speak 
with  new  tongues;  The3^  shall  take  up  serpents;  and  if 
they  drink  any  deadly  thing,  it  shall  not  hurt  them,  * 
*  *  they  shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick  and  they  shall 
recover." 

The  fact  is,  nobody  believes  this  text  strongly 
enough  to  act  upon  it.  Taken  literally,  the  text 
has  never  been  fulfilled.  Either  there  never  have 
been  any  believers,  or  Jesus,  even  after  his 
anastasis  was  like  many  spirits  are,  who  com- 
municate to-day,  sadly  fallible. 

The  best  thing  about  the  text  is,  Jesus  never 
said  so;  the  language  is  an  interpolation  inserted 
at  a  later  date  than  that  of  writing  the  original 
book.  Proof  is  positive  that  it  was  the  work 
of  some  officious  monk  who  undertook  to 
strengthen  the  story  of  Jesus  but  overdid  the 
thing  and  made  it  v^^eaker.  I  only  refer  to  this 
because  it  is  handed  out  as  one  of  Jesus'  prophr 
ecies. 


HAVE  THE   PROPHECIES  BEEN  FULFILLED.    193 

In  Matt,  xvi,  28,  Jesus  told  his  friends  that 
there  were  some  standing  there  who  should  not 
tavSte  death  until  thej^  sa^v  him  coming  in  his 
kingdom.  They  have  all  been  dead  nearly  two 
thousand  years  and  he  has  not  yet  come  in  his 
kingdom. 

In  Alatt.  xix.  28,  he  promised  his  disciples 
that  they  should  sit  upon  twelve  thrones  judg- 
ing the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  Not  one  of  them 
ever  got  a  throne.  When  Jesus  rode  triumphantly 
into  Jerusalem  he  supposed  he  was  going  in 
there  to  take  the  kingdom.  In  fact  he  took  pos- 
session of  the  kingdom— took  a  scourge  of  small 
cords  and  undertook  to  drive  the  money  chang- 
ers out  of  their  own  temple,  he  supposing  that 
it  was  now  his  house.  In  his  effort  to  bring  in 
the  new  administration  he  overthrew  the  tables 
of  the  mone\^  changers.  He  was  mistaken;  his 
mistake  cost  him  his  life.  Instead  of  going  to 
his  throne  he  went  to  his  execution.  See  Matt, 
xxiii.  37;  Luke  xix.  35-40. 

Let  us  consider  the  predictions  concerning 
David's  throne.  Over  and  over  predictions  have 
been  made  concerning  David's  kingdom  and 
throne.  Every  one  of  them  has  failed  of  ac- 
complishment. When  the  angel  Gabriel  came  to 
the  girl,  Mary,  and  announced  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  he  added:  *-He  shall  be  great,  and  shall 
be  called  the  Son  of  the  Highest;  and  the  Lord 
G'od  shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of  his  father 
David;  and  he  shall  reign  over  the  house  oi 
Jacob  forever,  and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be 
no  end."    Luke  i.  31-33. 


194     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

If  Jesus  was  not  Joseph's  son  it  is  very  doubt- 
ful  whether  he  was  the  son  of  David  at  all.  All 
genealogies  which  undertake  to  trace  him  back 
to  David,  trace  him  through  Joseph,  who  was 
supposed  not  to  be  his  father.  As  to  his  having 
David's  throne  or  kingdom,  that  was  a  mis- 
take, as  he  never  got  either.  The  prophecy  is 
untrue.  If  Jesus  has  a  throne  in  heaven,  that  is 
a  very  different  thing;  that  is  what  David  never 
had,  iind  is  onl^^  what  is  promised  to  all  the 
saints.  See  Matt.  xix.  28;  Luke  xxii.  30;  I  Cor. 
vi.  2;   Rev.  ii.  26,  27;  iii.  21. 

In  Psa.  Ixxxix.  3,  4,  the  prophet  prophecies  as 
follows: 

"I  have  made  a  covenant  with  my  chosen,  I  have 
sworn  unto  David  mj'-  servant,  thy  seed  will  I  estab- 
lish forever,  and  build  up  the  throne  to  all  generations." 

Now  turn  to  verses  27-37,  where  the  promise 
is: 

"I  will  also  make  him  mj^  firstborn,  higher  than  the 
kings  of  the  earth.  M}^  mercy  will  I  keep  for  him  for- 
evermore,  and  my  covenant  shall  stand  fast  \vith  him. 
His  seed  will  I  make  to  endure  forever,  and  his  throne 
as  the  da3'-s  of  heaven.  If  his  children  forsake  my  law, 
and  walk  not  in  my  judgments;  if  they  break  mj^  stat- 
utes, and  keep  not  my  commandments;  then  will  I 
visit  their  transgressions  with  a  rod,  and  their  iniqui- 
ty with  stripes.  Nevertheless  my  loving  kindness  will 
I  not  ncterly  take  from  him,  nor  suffer  my  faithfulness 
to  fail,  my  covenant  w^ill  I  not  break,  nor  alter  the 
thing  that  is  gone  out  of  my  lips.  Once  have  I  sworn 
bv  niv  holiness  that  I  will  not   lie  unto   David.      His- 


HAA'E  THE   PROPHECIES  BEEN   FULFILLED?   195 

ttcCQ  shall  endure  forever,  and  his  throne  as  the  days 
of  heaven." 

There  can  be  no  mistaking  the  tenor  of  these 
predictions.  God  swears  that  he  will  not  lie  to 
David;  "because  he  could  swear  by  no  greater 
he  could  swear  b^^  himself"— by  his  own  holi- 
ness, that  he  would  not  lie  to  David,  wdiatever 
he  might  do  to  others;  what  he  was  to  say  to 
David  should  be  the  truth.  He  then  promises  to 
build  up  his  throne  to  all  generations. 

In  the  second  text  he  saj^s  he  ma^^  have  oc- 
casion to  chastise  David's  sons  for  their  sins;  he 
may  visit  their  transgressions  wdth  a  rod,  and 
their  iniquity  w4th  stripes;  yet  he  will  not  break 
his  oath.  "Once  have  I  sw^om  by  my  holiness 
that  I  w411  not  lie  unto  David;  his  seed  shall  en- 
dure forever,  and  his  throne  as  the  sun  before 
me;  it  shall  be  established  forever  as  the  moon," 
Nothing  can  be  plainer — nothing  stronger;  the 
conditions  are  all  taken  out  of  it.  No  matter 
how^  wicked  David's  children  may  be,  David's 
throne  shall  last  as  long  as  the  sun  and  moon 
exist.  That  is  not  all,  but  all  this  time  it  shall 
be  occupied  by  one  of  David's  sons. 

Does  the  reader  sa3'  that  it  is  not  in  the  text? 
I  answer  it  is  implied  in  this  text  and  is  plainly 
stated  in  others. 

Please  turn  to  Jer.  xxxiii.  17-22  and  read  the 
following: 

"For  thus  saith  the  Lord:  David  shall  never  want 
a  man  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  the  house  of  Israel; 
neither  shall  the  priests  the    Levites    want  a  man    be- 


196     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

foi-e  me  to  offer  burnt  offerings,  and  to  kindle  meat 
offerings,  and  to  sacrifice  continually.  And  the  word 
of  the  Lord  came  unto  Jeremiah,  saying,  thus  saith 
the  Lord;  if  ye  can  break  my  covenant  of  the  day  and 
my  covenant  of  the  night,  and  that  there  [should  not 
be  day  and  night  in  their  season,  then  may  also  my 
covenant  be  broken  with  David  my  servant,  that  he 
should  not  have  a  son  to  reign  upon  his  throne;  and 
with  the  Levites,  the  priests,  my  ministers.  As  the 
hosts  of  heaven  cannot  be  numbered,  neither  the  sand 
of  the  sea  measured;  so  will  I  multiply  the  seed  Df 
David  my  servant,  and  the  Levites  that  minister  unto 
me." 

There  can  be  no  misunderstanding  of  this 
prophecy.  Day  and  night  shall  cease  before  the 
covenant  shall  be  broken.  David  shall  never 
v'/ant  a  man  to  sit  on  his  throne;  nor  shall  there 
ever,  w^hile  day  and  night  endures,  be  a  failure 
of  the  Levitical  priesthood — Levites  shall  always 
administer  in  the  Temple,  before  the  Lord.  All 
honest  people  must  admit  that  these  prophecies 
are  positive  and  absolute  failures. 

PROPHECIES 
SUPPOSED  TO  HAVE   BEEN  FULFILLED. 

Before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  sup- 
posed fulfilled  prophecies  it  may  be  well  to  note 
vsrhat  it  takes  to  fulfill  a  prophecy.  If  a  predic- 
tion fails  in  one  point  it  is  not  fulfilled.  It  is 
eas3^  to  prophecy,  and  have  all  your  prophecies 
fulfilled  as  long  as  you  keep  points  out  of  your 
predictions.  But  as  prophecy  is  never  fulfilled 
while  a  point  remains  unfulfilled,  when  one  begins 
to  put  points  into  prophecy  the  trouble  begins. 


HAVE  THE  PROPHECIES  BEEN  FULFILLED?  197 

To  illustrate  this,  I  may  say  President  McKin- 
1^3^  will  die.  Time  will  see  that  that  prophecy 
is  fulfilled,  because  it  has  no  point.  When  I  put 
a  point  into  the  prediction  danger  begins;  and, 
as  I  add  points  I  quadruple  the  chances  for  mis- 
takes. 

Now  to  put  a  point  to  my  prediction  concern- 
ing our  President,  I  sa^^,  he  will  die  during  the 
year  1900.  His  death  any  other  year  would  not 
fulfill  the  prediction.  To  make  another  point  I 
will  say,  he  wall  die  in  July  of  the  3'ear  1900. 
His  death  in  an^^  other  month  of  that  year 
would  prove  me  a  false  prophet  instead  of  a 
true  one. 

As  a  further  illustration  allow  me  to  add  a 
few  more  points.  President  KcKinley  wdll  die 
on  the  15th  day  of  July,  1900,  from  the  effects 
of  overwork.  Now^  even  though  he  dies  on  the 
day  specified,  if  he  dies  from  any  other  cause 
than  the  one  mentioned  mj^  prophecy  fails. 

At  the  expense  of  being  charged  w^ith  prolixity 
allow  me  to  enumerate  the  points  in  this  predic- 
tion: 

1.  President  McKinle^-  must  die. 

2.  He  must  die  in  1900. 

3.  He  must  die  in  Juh^ 

4.  He  must  die  on  the  15th  day  of  the  month. 

5.  He  must  die  from  overwork. 

A  failure  in  any  one  of  these  points  makes  a 
failure  in  the  prophecy.  If  Mr.  McKinley  is  shot 
to  death  on  that  day,  my  prophecy  has  failed, 
for  the  greatest  and  most  important  of  all  the 


198     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

points  was  that  he  must  die  from  overwork. 
Under  this  rule  nearly  if  not  quite  all  of  the 
Bible  predictions  are  failures. 

As  evidence  of  the  fulfillment  of  the  prophe- 
cies the  authors  of  the  New  Testament  are  rep- 
resented as  quoting  and  showing  the  fufillment 
of  many  of  the  Old  Testament  predictions. 
''The  Gospel  According  to  St.  Matthew,"  more 
than  any  other  part  of  the  New  Testament 
abounds  in  the  supposed  fulfillment  of  the  Old 
Testament  prophecies.  There  is  a  reason  why 
Matthew  does^  this,  which  is  not  generally  un- 
derstood. This  reason  will  appear  when  that 
book  passes  under  review.    Matt.  i.  22,  23. 

"Now  all  this  was  done  that  it  might  be  fulfilled 
which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet  saying: 
Behold,  a  virgin  shall  be  with  child,  and  shall  bring 
forth  a  son,  and  they  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel 
which,  being  interpreted  is,  God  with  us." 

I  have  always  wondered  that  any  one  cotild 
apply  this  text  to  Jesus.  It  has  no  more  refer- 
ence to  him  than  it  has  to  the  Emperor  of 
Germany.  Jesus'  name  never  was  Immanuel; 
nor  can  I  find  any  authority  outside*  of  this 
text  for  making  the  word  Immanuel  mean  God 
v^ith  us.  The  original  prophecy  which  the 
writer  of  the  book  of  Matthew  thinks  he  quotes 
is  found  in  Isaiah  vii.  13-16.  The  circumstan- 
ces were  these:  In  the  days  of  King  Ahaz,  the 
son  of  Jotham,  Rezin,  king  of  Syria,  and  Pekah, 
the  son  of  Remaliah,  the  king  of  Israel,  formed 
what  to-day  would  be  called  "a  combine"  against 


HAVE  THE  PROPHECIES  BEEN  FULFILLED?    199 

Ahaz,  the  king  of  Judah.  This  federation  filled 
the  heart  of  Ahaz,  king  of  Judah,  with  fear. 
^'His  heart  was  moved,  and  the  hearts  of  his 
people,  as  the  trees  of  the  wood  are  moved  with 
the  wind." 

While  in  this  condition  Isaiah  the  prophet  was 
sent  to  him  with  a  message.  He  told  the  king 
-to  take  heed;  be  quiet,  and  fear  not.  He  in- 
formed the  king  that  the  confederacy  of  his 
enemies  would  not  stand.  Verses  7-9  read  as 
follows: 

"Thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  it  shall  not  stand,  neither 
shall  it  come  to  pass.  For  the  head  of  Sj^ria  is  Damas- 
cus, and  the  head  of  Damascus  is  Rezin;  and  wdthin 
three  score  and  five  years  shall  Ephraim  be  broken, 
that  he  be  not  a  people." 

It  is  thus  seen  that  the  prophet  was  not  talk- 
ing about  a  Messiah  at  all,  but  about  a  con- 
spiracy to  overthrow  the  kingdom  of  Ahaz.  He 
tells  the  king  that  within  three  score  and  five 
3'ears  shall  Ephraim  be  broken  that  he  be  not  a 
people.  He  then  urges  the  king  to  believe.  He 
next  asks  Ahaz  to  ask  a  sign— ask  it  either  in 
the  depth,  or  in  the  heighth  above.  This  the 
king  refused  to  do;  he  would  not  imply  a  doubt 
by  asking  a  sign.    Then  Isaiah  ssljs: 

"Hear  now,  O  house  of  David;  is  it  a  small  thing 
for  3'ou  to  weary  men,  but  will  ye  weary  my  God  also? 
therefore  the  Lord  himself  shall  give  you  a  sign;  be- 
hold, a  virgin  shall  conceive,  and  bear  a  son,  and 
shall  call  his  name  Immanuel.  Butter  and  honey  shall 
he  eat,  that  he  may  know  to  refuse  the  evil  and 
choose  the  good     For  before  the  child  shall  know  to 


200     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

refuse  the  evil  and  choose  the  gooa  the  land  that  tliou 
abhorest  shall  be  forsaken  of  both  her  kings."  Verses 
13-16. 

''Epliraim  is  to  be  cut  ofi,  that  he  be  not  a 
people."  This  is  to  be  done  within  three  score 
and  five  years,  The  time  was  very  definite;  if  it 
was  to  be  done  within  sixty  3^ears  the  prophet 
would  hardly  have  added  that  extra  five  years. 
As  a  sign  that  Ahaz  was  to  conquer  "his  enemies 
a  virgin  was  to  have  a  child.  This  was  an 
utterly  unheard  of  proposition.  Now  I  submit 
that  a  child  born  seven  hundred  jqslts  after  that 
prediction,  even  though  born  of  a  virgin,  would 
hardly  fill  that  prediction. 

On  this  subject  Thomas  Paine,  in  his  work  on 
prophecy  said: 

"Here  then  is  the  sign,  which  was  to  be  the  birth  of 
a  child,  and  that  child  a  son;  and  here  also  is  the 
time  limited  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  sign,  name- 
ly, before  the  child  should  know  to  refuse  the  evil  and 
choose  the  good. 

"The  thing,  therefore,  to  be  a  sign  of  success  to 
Ahaz,  must  be  something  that  would  take  place  be- 
fore the  event  of  the  battle  then  pending  between  him 
and  the  two  kings  would  be  known.  A  thing  to  be  a 
sign  must  preceede  the  thing  signilied.  The  sign  of  rain 
must  be  before  the  rain. 

**It  would  have  been  a  mockery  and  insulting  non- 
sense for  Isaiah  to  have  assured  Ahaz  as  a  sign,  that 
these  two  kings  should  not  prevail  against  him;  that 
a  child  should  be  born  seven  hundred  years  after  he 
was  dead;  and  that  before  the  child  so  born  should  know- 
to  refuse  the  evil  and  choose  the  good  he,  Ahaz  should 


be  delivered  fron'i  the  dangei  with  which  nc  was  then 
immediately  threatened." 

The  Jewish  translation  of  this  text  is  not  ''Be- 
hold a  virgin  shall  conceive,"  but,  ''Behold  a 
woman  is  with  child,"  etc.  The  woman  was 
Mrs.  Isaiah  and  the  child  was  Maher-shalal- 
hashbaz. 

In  any  aspect  of  the  case  the  prophecy  was 
untrue.  Ahaz  went  to  w^ar  as  Isaiah  directed, 
and  lost  all.  The  history  of  the  matter  is  re- 
corded in  II  Chron.,  xxviii    1-6,  as  follows: 

"Ahaz  was  twenty  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign, 
and  he  reigned  sixteen  years  in  Jerusalem.  *  *  *  Where- 
fore the  Lord  his  God  delivered  him  unto  the  king  of 
Syria;  and  they  smote  him,  and  carried  away  a  great 
multitude  of  them  captives,  and  brought  them  to  Da- 
mascus. And  he  was  also  delivered  into  the  hand  of 
the  king  of  Israel,  who  smote  him  with  a  great  slaugh- 
ter. For  Pekah  the  son  of  Remaliah  slew  in  Judah  an 
hundred  and  twenty  thousand  in  one  day,  which  were 
all  valiant  men;  because  they  had  forsaken  the  Lord 
God   of  their  fathers." 

Certainly  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Matthew, 
or  the  interpolator  in  that  book  ^vas  terribly 
mistaken  in  his  first  effort  to  appl3^  prophecy  to 
Jesus.  Let  us  see  how  he  succeeds  in  his  next 
effort.    Matt.  ii.  5,  6,  says: 

"And  they  said  unto  him,  In  Bethlehem  of  Judea; 
for  thus  it  is  written  by  the  prophet,  and  thou  Beth- 
lehem, in  the  land  of  Juda,  art  not  the  least  among 
the  princes  of  Juda;  for  out  of  thee  shall  come  a 
governor  that  shall  rule  my  people  Israel." 

This  may  be   true;    that   is,    Herod    may  have 


202     THE   BIBLE  AND   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

asked  these  wise  men  this  question,  and,  for 
anything  I  know  to  the  contrary,  these  wise 
men  may  have  answered  as  this  writer  says; 
but  if  the}^  did  they  were  not  ''wise"  in  their 
answers.  Before  quoting  the  prophecy  that  this 
writer  thinks  he  quotes,  I  would  Uke  to  say  that 
the  queer  antics  of  stars  had  heralded  the  ad- 
vent of  many  gods  and  great  men  long  before 
Jeses  was  born,  and  that  unless  a  star  by  some 
unstarlike  behavior  announced  the  birth  of  a 
god,  that  particular  god  coming  thus  unan- 
nounced was  not  considered  much  of  a  god. 
Stars  had  been  sent  to  announce  the  birth  of 
Horns,  of  Egypt;  Zoroaster,  Buddha,  Brahma 
and  even  Romulus,  and  some  of  the  Cesars,  be- 
fore Jesus;  and  Mohammed  after  Jesus. 

Now  when  in  the  second  century  after  Jesus 
the  decision  had  been  reached  to  make  a  god  of 
him,  it  was  necessary  to  re-introduce  these  eccen- 
tric stars.  It  is  only  in  this  one  bcK)k  of  the 
Bible  that  these  stories  are  found. 

The  prophecy  that  this  writer  thinks  he  quotes 
is  found  in    Micah  v.  2-6,  and    reads  as  follows: 

"But  thou  Bethlehem  Ephratah,  though  thou  be 
little  among  the  thousands  of  Judah  yet  of  thee 
shall  he  come  forth  unto  me  that  is  to  be  ruler  in 
Israel;  whose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old 
from  everlasting.  Therefore  will  he  give  them  up,  un- 
til the  time  that  she  which  travaileth  hath  brought 
forth;  then  the  remnant  of  his  brethem  shall  return 
unto  the  children  of  Israel.  *  *  *  And  this  man  shall 
be  the  peace,  when  the  Assyrian  shall  come  into  our 
land;   and    when    he  shall    tread  in  our  palaces,   then 


HAVE  THE  PROPHECIES  BEEN  FULFILLED?  203 

shall  he  raise  against  him  seven  shepherds,  and 
eight  principal  men.  (Eight  princes. — Margin.) 
And  they  shall  waste  the  land  of  Assyria  with  the 
sword,  and  the  land  of  Nimrod  in  the  entrances 
thereof;  thus  shall'  he  deliver  us  from  the  Assj'rian, 
when  he  cometh  into  our  land,  and  when  he  tread- 
eth  within  our  borders. 

Was  this  true  of  Jesus?  Was  he  a  ruler  of  the 
people?  The  Ass3^rian  came  in  and  destroyed 
the  land  of  Jesus  about  the  time  this  prediction 
was  written,  but  did  the  Ass^^rian  come  into 
the  land,  or  even  threaten  the  land  in  the  da^^s 
of  Jesus?  Were  not  the  Assyrians  in  as  much 
subjection  to  the  Romans  at  that  time  as  were 
the  Jews  themselves?  Did  Jesus  deliver  the  Jews 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  Assyrians,  or  of  any- 
body? Who  and  where  were  the  seven  shepherds 
and  the  eight  principal  men  (princes)?  Did  Jesus 
waste  the  land  of  the  Assyrians  and  the  land  of 
Nimrod? 

The  only  thing  in  this  whole  prediction  that 
could  by  any  possibility  apply  to  Jesus  was  the 
fact  that  he  happened  to  be  bom  in  Bethlehem; 
but  there  v^ere  thousands  of  children  born  there 
before  and  thousands  after  Jesus;  and  among  all 
the  thousands,  not  one  to  whom  the  prophecy 
would  not  apply  as  w^ell  as  it   applied   to  Jesus. 

In  Matt.  ii.  14,  15,  another  attempt  is  made 
to  find  a  prediction  that  applies  to  Jesus.  It 
says: 

"When  he  arose  and  took  the  young  child  and  his 
mother  by  night,  and  departed  into  Egypt;  and  was 
there  until  the  death  of  Herod;  that  it  might  be  ful- 


204-     THE   BIIJLE  AND   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

filled  which  was  spolven  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet, 
SMVinr^  out  of  Egj^pt  have  I  called  my  son." 

Th:s  quotation  is  another  proof  that  this  "blun- 
dering-, blustering  writer"  or  interpolator  knew 
nothing  of  what  he  was  writing  about.  There 
is  no  such  prediction  as  this  writer  thinks  he  is 
quoting.  The  only  thing  in  the  whole  Bible  that 
can  possibly  resemble  this  quotation  in  the  least 
is  in  Hosea  xi.  1,  2,  which  says: 

"Whea  Israel  was  a  child,  then  I  loved  him,  and 
called  my  son  out  of  Egypt.  As  they  called  them  so 
thev  went  from  them;  and  they  sacrificed  unto  Baalim, 
and  burned  incense  to  graven  images." 

The  prophet  is  here  referring  to  the  past,  that 
G^d  loved  his  son,  Israel,  and  called  him  out  of 
Eg3^pt  on  purpose  so  that  he  could  enjoy  him; 
and  then  w^hen  he  got  him  out  of  Egypt  he  went 
to  burning  insense  to  Baalim,  and  worshipping 
graven  images.  I  mast  be  allowed  to  say  that 
Jesus  v^as  not  guilty.  The  text  had  no  more 
reference  to  Jesus  than  it  had  to  Gen.  Grant,  or 
President  McKinley. 

The  next  effort  of  this  v^rriter  to  find  or  make 
a  fulfillment  of  prophecy  is  found  in  Matt.  ii. 
17-18,  which  says: 

''Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken  by  Jere- 
my the  prophet,  saying,  In  Rama  vsras  there  a  voice 
heard,  lamentation,  and  weeping,  and  great  mourning, 
Rachel  v/eeping  for  her  children,  and  would  not  be 
comforted  because  they  are  not." 

Now  turn  to  Jeremiah  xxxi.  15-17,  and  it  v/ill 
be  seen  that  after  the  prophet  uses  the  language 
above  quoted  he  says: 


HAVE  THE  PROPHECIES  BEEN  FULFILLED?  205 

"Thus  saith  the  Lord,  refrain  thy  voice  from  weep- 
ing, and  thine  eyes  from  tears,  for  thy  work  shall  be 
rewarded,  saith  the  Lord  and  they  shall  come  again 
from  the  land  of  the  enemy.  And  there  is  hope  in  thine 
end  saith  the  Lord;  thy  children  shall  come  again  in 
their  own  border." 

In  verse  21  he  says:    **0,  virgin  of  Israel,  turn 
again  to  these  thy  cities." 
In  verse  23  he  says: 

*'As  yet  they  shall  use  this  speech  in  the  land  of  Ju- 
dah,  and  in  the  cities  thereof,  when  I  shall  bring 
again  their  captivity." 

Why  did  Rachel,  that  is,  mothers  in  Israel 
weep?  Not  because  their  chiidren  were  killed  in 
and  around  Bethlehem,  but  because  they  were 
in  captivity  in  Babylon— the  land  of  their  ene- 
mies. Why  was  she  asked  to  refrain  her  voice 
from  v/eeping  and  her  eyes  from  tears?  Not  be- 
cause the  dead  chiidren  should  return  to  their 
mothers,  but,  l)ecause  the  children  of  Israel 
should  return  from  Babylon,  the  land  of  the 
enemy.  As  in  verse  31,  ''They  should  turn  again 
to  these  cities."  Verse  23  promises  that  their 
captivity  shall  end  and  they  shall  use  certain 
speeches  in  the  land  of  Judah. 

There  is  only  one  more  effort  to  make  proph- 
ecy fulfilled  in  the  birth  of  Jesus.  Matt.  ii.  23 
has  the  following:  ''And  he  came  and  dwelt  in 
the  city  called  Nazareth,  that  it  might  be  ful- 
filled which  was  spoken  by  the  prophets.  He 
shall  be  called  a  Nazarene."  This,  perhaps,  more 
than  any  other  text,  displays  the  ignorance  of 
the  interpolater.    There  is    no    such  prophecy  as 


206      THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

this  writer  supposes  he  is  quoting.  In  Judges 
xiii.  5,  a  prediction  is  made  to  Mrs.  Manoah 
concerning  her  son  Samson,  which  says: 

"No  razor  shall  come  on  his  head;  for  he  shall  be  a 
Nazarite  unto  God  from  the  womb." 

The  one  who  wrote  the  text  in  Matthew  did 
not  know  the  difference  between  a  Nazarite  and 
a  Nazarene.  The  words  sound  a  little  alike,  and 
that  was  enough  in  the  estimation  of  the  monk 
who  wrote  this,  to  make  the  fulfillment  of  proph- 
ecy. If  the  reader  will  turn  and  read  the  first 
twelve  verses  of  the  sixth  chapter  of  Numbers, 
he  will  find  what  a  Nazarite  is,  and  how  he  must 
live.  A  Nazarene  was  one  Vv'ho  dwelt  at  Naza- 
reth. Samson  was  to  be  a  Nazarite  from  his 
birth.  This  writer  got  an  inkling  of  the  text, 
and,  moved  b^^  the  sound  of  the  v/ords  rather 
than  by  the  sense,  he  hastened  to  apply  it  to 
Jesus,  because  he  spent  a  lev/  3^ears  of  his  child- 
hood in  Nazareth. 

I  am  not  more  astonished  at  the  ignorance 
and  audacity  of  this  writer  than  I  am  at  the 
ignorance  or  perverseness  of  the  clerg3%  who  for 
centuries  have  allowed  these  New  Testament  ex- 
positions of  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  to  go  un- 
challenged. 

At  the  same  time  that  the  decision  was  made, 
that  to  make  a  God  of  the  man  of  Nazareth, 
they  must  have  prophec^^  fulfilled,  and  miracles 
in  connection  with  his  birth,  it  was  thought 
necessary  to  have  him  go  out  of  the  world  in 
fulfillment  of  prophecy  and    as    miraculously  as 


HAVE  THE   PROPHECIES  BEEN   FULFILLED.   207 

he  got  into  it.  So,  perhaps,  the  same  hand  that 
treated  us  to  the  fulfillment  of  prophecies  just 
examined,  got  in  its  work  in  connection  with 
the  death  of  Jesus. 

The  first  attempt  is  in  Matt.  xxvi.  51-56. 

"And  behold,  one  of  them  that  were  with  Jesus 
stretched  out  his  hand,  and  drew  his  sword,  and 
struck  a  servant  of  the  high  priest's  and  smote  off  his 
ear.  Then  said  Jesus  unto  him,  put  up  again  thy  sword 
into  his  place;  for  all  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish 
with  the  sword.  Thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot 
praj'  to  my  father,  and  he  shall  presently  give  me 
more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels?  But  then  how 
shall  the  scripture  be  fulfilled  that  thus  it  must  be? 
In  that  same  hour  said  Jesus  to  the  multitude,  are 
ye  come  out  as  against  a  thief  with  swords  and  staves 
for  to  take  me?  I  sat  daily  with  you  teaching  in  the 
temple,  and  ye  laid  no  hand  on  me.  But  all  this  was 
done  that  the  scriptures  of  the  prophets  might  be 
fulfilled.    Then  all  the  disciples  forsook  him  and  fled." 

This  story  is  altogether  unreasonable.  In  the 
first  place,  the  Jews  were  at  this  time  a  captive 
nation;  they  were  under  the  dominion  of  the 
Romans.  It  is  not  usual  to  allow  captives,  who 
are  inclined  to  break  away  from  their  conquer- 
ors, to  handle  swords;  the  usual  custom  was, 
and  is,  to  disarm  them.  The  Jews  were  all  the 
time  looking  for  their  deliverer  to  come  and  save 
them  from  Roman  domination.  It  hardly  looks 
consistent,  that  these  captives  went  armed  with 
swords. 

2.  Why  did  thej^  not  arrest  this  swordsman? 
Not  a  word  is  said  about  it;  he  cut  off  a  man's 


208      THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

ear,  and  is  allowed  to  go  as  free  as  if  he  had 
only  cut  off  the  end  of  a  dog's  tail.   • 

3.  There  is  no  such  scripture  as  this  pretended 
quotation.  Jesus'  words  end  with,  '*I  sat  daily 
with  you  in  the  temple,  and  ye  laid  no  hand  on 
me."  Then  this  writer,  or  interpolater,  adds  this 
pretended  reference  to  the  scripture.  Beside,  ac- 
cording to  this  same  writer,  Jesus  did  not  sit 
daily  in  the  temple  teaching;  he  was  never  there 
after  he  was  twelve  years  old  until  he  rode  into 
Jerusalem  only  a  day  or  two    before    his    death. 

In  Matt,  xxvii.  9,  is  another  pretended  quota- 
tion from  the  prophet.  In  this  instance  ''Jeremy," 
supposed  to  be  Jeremiah,  is  the  prophet  the 
writer  supposes  he  quotes.    He  has  it  as  follows: 

"Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken  by  Jere- 
my the  prophet,  saying,  and  they  took  the  thirty  pieces 
of  silver,  the  price  of  him  that  was  valued,  whom  they 
of  the  children  of  Israel  did  value;  and  gave  them  for 
the  Potter's  field,  as  the  I^ord  appointed  me." 

As  above  remarked,  there  is  no  such  prediction 
in  Jeremiah.  Zechariah,  not  Jeremiah  has  ''two 
staves,"  one  he  called  "beauty,"  and  the  other 
"bands."  'I'hese  two  staves  represented  the  pre- 
dicted reuniting  of  Judah  and  Israel— a  uniting 
which,  by  the  way,  never  came.  In  Zech.  xi. 
12-13,  the  prophet  says: 

"And  I  said  unto  them,  if  ye  think  good,  give  me 
my  price;  and  if  not,  forbear.  So  they  weighed  for  my 
price  thirty  pieces  of  silver.  And  the  Lord  said  unto 
me  cast  it  unto  the  potter,  a  goodly  price  that  I  was 
prized  at  of  them.     And  I  took  the  thirty  pieces  of 


HAVE  THE   PROPHECIES  BEEN  FULFILLED?^  209 

silver,  and  cast  them  to  the  potter  in  the  house  of  the 
Lord." 

How  this  can  be  made  to  apply  to  Judas  be- 
traj'ing  Jesus,  or  to  his  bu^'ing  a  potter's  field, 
I  have  never  yet  found  any  one  who  could  ex- 
plain. It  certainly  does  not  fit  either  of  the  con- 
tradictory stories  concerning  Judas.  The  stories 
as  we  have  them  read  as  follows: 

"And  he  cast  down  the  pieces  of  silver  in  the  tem- 
ple, and  departed  and  went  and  hanged  himself." 
Matt,  xxvii.  5. 

"Now  this  man  purchased  a  field  with  the  reward 
of  iniquity;  and  falling  headlong,  he  burst  asunder,  in 
the  midst,  and  all  his  bowels  gushed  out."    Acts  i.  18. 

The  first  of  these  stories  does  not  make  him 
buy  a  potter's  field,  but  has  him  cast  the  silver 
down  in  the  temple,  and  then  go  out  and  com- 
mit suicide  by  hanging.  The  second  has  him  go 
and  purchase  the  field.  Whose  field  it  was,  what 
he  paid  for  it,  or  what  he  intended  to  do  with 
it,  the  writer  has  not  told  us.  Then  he  has  him 
die  by  an  accident,  unless  he  fell  because  he  was 
dead. 

The  writer  who  adds  all  the  romance  to  the 
book  of  Matthew,  gets  one  more  story  in  con- 
nection with  the  death  of  Jesus,  which,  though 
it  is  not  handed  out  as  the  fulfillment  of  proph- 
ec3^,  deserves,  in  this  connection,  to  be  noticed. 
In  Matt,  xxvii.  51-53,  it  is  stated  as  follows: 

"And  behold  the  veil  of  the  temple  was  rent  in  twain 
from  the  top  to  the  bottom;  and  the  earth  did  quake, 
and  the  rocks  rent;  and  the  graves  were  opened;  and 
many  bodies  of  the  saints  which  slept  arose,  and  came 


210     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

out  of  tneir  graves  alter    his    resurrection,    and    went 
unto  the  holy  city  and  appeared  unto  many. 

Is  it  possible  that  all  these  phenomena  cotild 
have  occurred  at  this  time  and  no  one  but  this 
writer  ever  have  heard  of  them.  The  Jews  were 
worshipping  in  the  temple  every  day,  and  kept  it 
up  every  day  for  at  least  a  quarter  of  a  century 
after  the  rending  of  the  veil  between  the  holy 
and  the  most  holy,  and  yet  not  one  of  them 
ever  heard  of  the  veil  having  been  rent  in  twain! 
The  earth  quaked,  and  rocks  w^ere  rent  asunder; 
and  at  that  ve-ry  time  there  were  several  histori- 
ans recording  history,  and  yet  not  one  of  them 
mentions  the  fact. 

Notice  the  story  of  the  dead  getting  up  out  of 
their  graves  and  going  into  the  ''holy  city,"  and 
appearing  to  many.  Does  not  that  sound  apoc- 
i-yphal?  Where  v^as  the  ''holy  city.'^"  It  certainly 
was  not  Jerusalem,  the  city  over  which  Jesus 
wept,  and  that  he  compared  to  the  fabled  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah,  and  in  which  he  was  killed.  To 
whom  did  those  "saints"  appear?  The  use  of 
one  name  here  would  have  been  a  good  thing. 
The  fact  is,  these  stories  were  invented  long,  long 
after  their  supposed  author  had  gone  to  join  his 
fathers  in  the  other  countr3^ 

Edward  Gibbon,  one  of  the  most  sarcastic 
writers  that  ever  spread  ink  on  paper  with  pen, 
speaks  of  this  matter  as  follows: 

"How  shall  we  excuse  the  supine  inattention  of  the 
Pagan  and  philosophic  world  to  the  evidences  which  were 
presented   by  the  hand   of  Omnipotence,   not  to   their 


I 
HAVE  THE  PROPHECIES  BEEN  FULFILLED?  211 

r«aaun,  but  to  their  senses.  This  miraculous  event, 
which  ought  to  have  excited  the  wonder,  the  curiosity 
and  the  devotion  of  mankind^  passed  without  notice, 
in  an  age  of  science  and  histor3^  It  happened  during 
the  life  time  of  Seneca,  and  Plinj':,  the  elder,  who  must 
have  experienced  the  immediate  effects,  or  received  the 
earliest  intelligence  of  thi«  prodigy.  Each  of  these  phil- 
osophers, in  a  laborous  work,  has  recorded  all  the  great 
phenomena  of  nature — earthquakes,  meteors,  comets, 
and  eclipses,  which  his  indefatigable  curiosity  could 
collect;  both  the  one  and  the  other  have  omitted  to 
mention  the  greatest  phenomena  to  which  mortal  eye 
ha«  been  witness  since  the  creation  of  the  globe." 

Could  sarcasm  go  farther?  Could  it  be  more 
just?  This  ends  the  argument  on  Old  Testament 
prophecies  supposed  to  have  been  fulfilled  in  the 
New  Testament.    I  shall  next  show  some 

FULFILLED  PROPHECIES. 

It  is  a  strange  fact,  but  no  more  stran.2:e  than 
true,  that  of  all  the  Biblical  predictions,  none 
have  been  fulfilled  except  those  supposed  to  have 
been  made  in  some  way  by  his  Satanic  Majesty, 
or  some  of  his  subordinates. 

In  the  Garden  of  Eden,  God  and  the  snake 
both,  for  the  time  being,  turn  prophets;  God's 
predictions  failed,  while  the  gods  acknowledged 
that  the  serpent  told  the  truth.  In  Gen.  ii.  16, 
17,  God  is  represented  as  saying: 

"Of  every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  may  est  freely  eat 
but  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  thou 
shalt  not  eat  of  it;  for  in  the  day  that  thou  eatest 
thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die." 

Man  violated,  but  not  until    after   the  serpent 


212     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

had  quoted  God's  words  and  pronounced  them 
untrue.  In  chapter  three,  verses  4  and  5,  the 
snake  says: 

"Ye  shall  not  surely  die;  for  God  doth  know  that  in 
the  day  ye  eat  thereof  then  your  eyes  shall  be  opened, 
and  ye  shall  be  as  gods,  knowing  good  and  evil." 

That  the  serpent  was  right  in  saying  that 
their  eyes  should  be  opened,  the  gods  acknowl- 
edge when  they  say: 

"Behold,  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us,  to  know 
good  and  evil;  and  now,  lest  he  put  forth  his  hand,  and 
take  also  of  the  tree  of  life,  and  eat,  and  live  forever; 
therefore  the  Lord  God  sent  him  forth  from  the  garden 
of  Eden,  to  till  the  ground  from  whence  he  was  taken." 
Gen.  iii.  22-2^3. 

Did  man  die  that  day?  No.  The  same  author 
says: 

"And  Adam  lived  an  hundred  and  thirty  years,  and 
begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  image,  and 
called  his  name  Seth.  And  the  days  of  Adam,  after  he 
had  begotten  Seth,  were  eight  hundred  years,  and  he 
begat  sons  and  daughters,  and  all  the  days  that  Adam 
lived  were  nine  hundred  and  thirty  years;  and  he  died.'* 
Gen.  V.  3-5. 

In  the  light  of  these  scriptures  who  can  deny 
that  the  serpent  was  more  correct  in  his  predic- 
tions than  God  was  in  his? 

In  the  case  of  the  predictions  that  the  spirit 
of  Samuel  made  to  King  Saul,  through  the  me- 
dium who  has  been  named  *'the  Witch  of  En- 
dor^-"  the  prediction,  whether  given  by  the  spirit 
of  dead  Samuel,  or  by  the  woman,  was  true. 
"To-morrow,"  that  is,  in   the  immediate  future, 


HAVE  THE   PROPHECIES   BEEN   FULFILLED?    213 

"Shalt  thou  and  thy  sons  be  with  me.  The 
Lord  hath  rent  the  kingdom  out  of  thine  hand^ 
and  given  it  to  thy  neighbor,  even  to  David." 
See  1  Sam.  xxviii.  17. 

I  must  further  trespass  upon  the  patience  of 
the  reader  to  briefly  present  a  few  of  the  numer- 
ous 

PROPHECIES  NOT  IN  THE  BIBLE. 

Prophecy  is  something  which  belongs  alike  to 
every  age  and  nation.  In  most  cases  w^here  men 
and  women  have  prophecied  without  any  cIq-w 
whatever,  the  predictions  have  been  like  the  most 
of  those  found  in  the  Bible,  not  true.  Yet  enough 
of  them  have  been  fulfilled  to  show  that  men 
are  at  times  gifted  with  a  kind  of  predictive 
powder  which  occasionally  correctly  reads  some 
things  in  the  future. 

Take,  for  instance,  the  predictions  made  in 
1788,  by  M.  Cazotte,  as  preserved  and  handed 
to  us  by  that  other  Frenchman,  La  Harpe. 
These  predictions  contained  more  than  a  dozen 
defijiite  and  improbable  points,  every  one  of 
which  was  fulfilled.  It  is  too  long  to  quote;  let 
me,  in  the  briefest  possible  manner,  relate 
some  of  its  principal  points.  First,  let  me  say 
that  La  Harpe,  who  made  and  preserved  a  rec- 
ord of  this  prophec3%  was  a  great  man;  an  hon- 
orable man.  At  the  time  the  predictions  were 
made  he  was  what  the  world  called  an  infidel; 
he  afterwards  became  a  Christian.  He  was  a 
member  of  the   Royal    Academy    of    Sciences — a 


214     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

man    whose    honor,    perhaps,    was   never  ques- 
tioned. 

1.  "Yes,  gentlemen,  you  will  witness  this  great  rev- 
olution. 

2.  "You,  Condoreet,  will  give  up  the  ghost  stretched 
out  qn  the  floor  of  a  subterranean  prison — you  will  die 
of  poison  which  you  will  swallow  to  escape  the  execu- 
tioner. 

3.  "Great  crimes  will  be  committed  in  the  name  of 
philosophy  and  reason.  Reason  will  have  her  temples. 
At  that  period  there  will  be  no  other  temples  in  France. 

4  "You,  M.  Chamfort,  will  open  your  veins  by  twen- 
tj'-'two  incisions  of  the  razor,  and  3^ou  will  die  only 
some  months  afterward. 

5.  "You,  M.  Vicq  d'Azyr,  will  not  open  jonr  veins 
yourself,  but  v^ill  cause  them  to  be  opened*six  times  in 
one  day  in  an  attack  of  the  gout.  l^ou  will  die  the 
same  night. 

6.  "You,  M.  Nicolai,  will  die  upon  the  scaffold. 

7.  "You,  M.  Bailley,  on  the  scaffold. 

8.  "You,  M.  Malesherbes,  on  the  scaffold." 

At  this  point  in  these  wonderful  predictions 
M.  Roucher  spoke  up  and  said:  "God  be  thanked, 
it  appears  that  M.  Cazotte  has  only  to  deal  with 
Academicians.  He  has  just  made  sad  havoc  of 
them.  I,  heaven  be  praised — "  At  this  point 
Cazotte  interrupted  him  with  a  prediction  which 
I  will  jS^ive  as — 

9.  "You  will  die  on  the  scaffold  also." 

Here  all  parties  laughed,  and  accused  Cazotte 
of  trifling  with  them,  when  in  the  most  serious 
manner  he  said:  "I  am  serious;  you  will  not 
then  be  ruled  by  the  Turks,  but  by  philosophy. 


HAVE  THE   PROPHECIES   BEEN  FULFILLED?  215 

Those  who  treat  you  thus  will  talk  of  reason 
and  philosophy;  and  these  things  will  occur  in 
the  temple  of  reason." 

Here  he  was  asked:  **When  shall  all  this  take 
place?"    His  answer  I  AviU  number— 

10.  "Six  years  shall  not  have  passed  before  all  that 
I  have  told  you  shall  be  fulfilled." 

11.  "With  respect  to  you  (La  Ilarpe),  a  wonder 
will  take  place:    You  will  then  be  a  Christian." 

This  caused  much  comment  and  merriment. 
Many  of  the  company  said:  "If  w^e  live  until 
La  Harpe  becomes  a  Christian  we  are  immor- 
tal." At  this  point  he  began  to  read  the  for- 
tunes of  the  ladies  present. 

12.  "Your  sex,  l^idies,  will  not  protect  you.  Duch- 
ess de  Grammont  will  be  drawn  on  a  scaffold— you 
and  many  other  ladies  with  you  upon  a  hurdle  with 
vour  hands  bound  behind  you." 

Thus  Cazotte  went  on  reading  the  fate  of 
many  others,  and  at  last  his  own.  I  have  tried 
to  condense  several  pages  into  a  few  words.  It 
is  enough  to  say  that  these  predictions  w^ere  ful- 
filled to  the  letter. 

The  world  has  many  prophets  and  a  few 
prognosticators  in  it  now.  Though  I  would 
advise  no  one  to  rely  much  on  mediumistic  pre- 
dictions for  they  are  generally  like  biblical  pre- 
dictions, very  doubtful;  yet,  if  this  were  the 
proper  place  I  could  point  out  dozens  of  medium- 
istic prognoses  w^hich  have  been  fulfilled  to  the 
letter.  Now  we  are  prepared  to  examkie  the 
prophetic  books  of  the  Bible. 


CHAPTER  X. 

ISAIAH  TO  DANIEL. 

Isaiah  Fragmentary— Change  of  Authors  at  Chapter  Forty 
— When  the  First  Isaiah  Lived — Dr.  Chadwick  on  Isaiah 
— Isaiah  a  Mosiac — A  Voice  from  Commentators — Jeremiah 
a  Doleful  Prophet — Divided  into  three  Parts— Last  three 
Chapters  not  Written  by  Jeremiah — ^Jeremiah's  Predictions 
not  Fulfilled — Texts  to  be  Examined — Ezekiel  Apocalyptic 
but  not  True — More  of  a  Priest  than  a  Prophet — Perhaps 
a  Good  Physical  Medium— His  Temple  and  City  Never 
Built. 

There  were  several  prophets  before  Isaiah,  but 
his  prophecy  being  the  longest  and  by  far  the 
most  interesting  of  any  prophecy  in  the  Bible 
was,  perhaps  for  these  reasons,  placed  first. 
While  some  of  the  prophecies  of  the  Bible  con- 
tain much  history  and  some  of  that  history  is 
more  correct  than  any  other  history  in  the  Old 
Testament,  they  are  for  the  most  part  frag- 
mentary poems. 

The  one  who  reads  the  book  of  Isaiah,  as 
though  the  prophet  had  written  it  out  as  a  con- 
tinuous history,  or  even  as  one  continuous  ser- 
mon or  poem  will  never  understand  it.  This 
book  is,  as  I  indicated,  fragmentary  poetry;  not 


ISAIAH  TO   DANIEL.  217 

all  written  at  one  time,  nor  by  one  man.  The 
last  twenty-seven  chapters  were  written  during 
and  after  the  Babylonish  Captivity.  The  first 
thirty  nine  chapters  were  written,  or  the  most 
of  them  were  written  before  that  event.  Even 
in  these  first  thirt^'-nine  chapters  are  many  in- 
terpolations. That  is,  many  fragments  were 
gathered  in  from  other  sources  and  put  into 
these  prophecies.  These  were  inserted  by  editors 
and  readactors  who  ma^^  or  may  not  have 
known  what  they  were  doing.  Chapter  eleven 
is  a  poem  inserted  by  some  other  hand  than  that 
of  Isaiah.  The  same  is  true  of  chapter  thirteen, 
from  verse  nine  to  the  end.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  first  twenty- three  verses  of  chapter  fourteen; 
also  of  all  of  chapter  twenty-four  to  chapter 
twentj^-seven. 

The  brevity  with  which  I  have  determined  to 
handle  the  prophecies  will  prevent  my  giving  all 
the  evidence  by  which  the  Higher  Critics  prove 
this;  I  can  only  say,  the  talk  of  vhe  captivity 
and  its  close  are  suflScient  proofs.  Isaiah  xiv.  2, 
contains  a  prophecy,  which,  b^'  the  wa^-,  was 
never  fulfilled,  which  promises  the  Hebrew  cap- 
tives that  they  shall  take  them  captives  whose 
captives  they  were;  and  that  the3'  shall  rule  over 
their  oppressors.  Verse  4,  informs  us  that  it 
was  in  Babylon  that  the3^  were  in  captivity. 
Now  the  Jews  were  never  in  Bab^donish  cap- 
tivity until  long  after  the  death  of  the  first 
Isaiah.  Similar  predictions  and  illustrations  are 
found  all  through  the  poems  indicated  above. 


218     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM:. 

Many  other  things  could  be  quoted  from  these 
unknown  \Yriters — things  which  demonstrate 
themselves.  Isaiah,  as  I  have  indicated,  perhaps 
wrote  the  most  of  the  book  until  you  come  to 
the  close  of  chapter  thirty -nine.  Then  history 
ends  in  this  book.  A  new  "Isaiah"  begins  chap- 
ter forty  with  "Comfort  ye,  comibrt  je,  m^^  peo- 
ple." Then  follow  the  promises  to  captive 
Israel,  and  the  denunciation^  of  Babylon  w^iicli 
run  almost  through  the  entire  book.  In  chap- 
ter forty-five  even  Cj^rus,  the  Persian  monarch,, 
successor  to  Babylon,  is  called  by  name.  In 
verse  1,  he  is  called  "the  Lord's  annointed,"" 
that  is,  "the  Lord's  Christ."  Cyrus  was  not 
born  until  over  four  hundred  years  after  the  real 
Isaiah  had  been  at  rest  with  his  fathers;  conse- 
quently this  must  have  been  the  work  of  the 
Deutro-Isaiah— that  is,  Isaiah,  the  second. 

The  original  Isaiah  was  a  son  of  Amos,  and 
cetemporary  with  Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz  and 
Bezekiah,  kings  of  Judah.  These  kings  reigned 
From  about  725  to  700  before  our  era.  See 
Isaiah  i.  1.  Also  the  very  last  words  spoken 
by  the  king  to  Isaiah.  Is.  xxxix.  8.  Please  also 
Qote  the  diff'erence  in  the  style  of  writing  in 
Isaiah  xxxix  and  xl.  No  two  writers  ever  dif- 
fered more  in  style  than  do  these  two. 

To  show  that  I  am  neither  wild  'ilor  alone  in 
this  criticism  I  will  make  one  quota±ion  from 
Mr.  Chadwick.  On  pp.  13  and  14  of  his  "Bibk 
of  To-Day,"  he  says: 

"For  a  long  time  Uiere  has  been  a  steadily  increasing 


ISAIAH   TO   DANIEL.  219 

agreement  among  scholars  in  regard  to  his  separate  au- 
thorship, and  now  there  is  not  a  respectable  scholar 
^Yho  is  not  convinced  of  it.  Read  the  whole  book  for 
yourselves  and  you  will  see  the  lines  of  separation. 
The  true  Isaiah  and  the  great  unknown  are  talking  of 
entirely  different  things.  Their  standpoints  are  differ- 
ent; their  aims  are  different.  Their  stjdes  are  different. 
The  great  subject  of  the  latter  is  the  deliverance  of  the 
Israelites  from  their  captivity';  and  their  return  to  their 
own  land,  while  in  the  true  Isaiah  this  captivity  does 
not  even  threaten  on  the  remotest  verge  of  the  prophe- 
tic horizon.  No  wonder,  seeing  that  it  was  still  a  hun- 
dred years  and  more  in  the  future  at  the  time  of  his 
death.  You  will  see  at  once  how  fruitful  of  misconcep- 
tion must  have  been  this  printing  as  one  book  the 
writings  of  two  great  prophets,  one  of  the  eighth  and 
the  other  of  the  sixth  century  before  Christ.  You  will 
see  how  much  wonder  mi:^t  have  been  wasted  over 
prophecies  which  were  almost  or  quite  cotemporan- 
eous  with  the  events.  You  will  see  how  little  literary 
skill  and  conscience  went  to  th«  editing  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament books,  for  this  is  not  an  isolated  example;  and 
how  blasphemous  it  is  to  saddle  the  Akni^ty  with 
the  results  of  such  human  imperfection.  Let  me  say 
in  passing  thd,t  the  'servant  of  Yahweh,'  who  plays  so 
conspicuous  a  part  in  the  Deutro-Isaiab,  the  desciiption 
of  whom  always  has  been  applied  to  the  Messiah,  'He  is 
despised  and  rejected,'  is  not  Messianic  at  all.  It  is 
the  true  Israjel  which  is  described;  that  is,  those  Jews 
who  during  their  captivity  were  faithful  to  their  na- 
tional religion." 

Many  wise  theologians  now  think  -^at  the 
book  of  Isaiah  may  have  boen  made  up  princi- 
pally from  the  poems  and  prophecies  of  the  great 


220     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

prophet  after  whom  it  was  named;  but  filled  m 
here  and  there  with  the  writings  of  other  auth- 
ors. The  fragments,  perhaps,  were  not  collected 
until  after  the  Deut  ro-Isaiah  had  written  the 
last  twenty -seven  chapters.  Prof.  Delitzsch,  in 
his  commentary  on  Isaiah  said: 

"It  may  have  been  an  Anthology  of  prophetic  dis- 
courses by  different  authors  that  is,  it  may  have  been 
composed  partly  and  directly  by  Isaiah,  and  partly  by 
later  prophets  whose  utterances  constitute  a  really 
homogeneous  and  simultaneous  continuation  of  Isaiah 
in  prophecy.  These  later  prophets  so  closely  resemble 
Isaiah  in  prophetic  vision  that  posterity  might,  on  that 
account,  well  identify  them  with  him,— his  name  being 
the  correct  common  denominator  for  this  collection  of 
prophecies." 

The  Encyclopedia  Britannica  has  so  much  to 
say  on  this  point  that  I  cannot  make  room  for 
it.  The  best  I  can  do  is  to  greatly  abridge  a 
page  of  that  great  work.  In  its  article  on 
Isaiah  it  says: 

**We  are  now  brought  face  to  face  with  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  whole  of  the  book  which  now 
bears  the  name  Isaiah  was  really  written  by  that  pro- 
phet *  *  *  The  existence  of  a  tradition  in  the  last  three 
centuries  before  Christ  as  to  the  authorship  of  any 
book  is  (to  those  acquainted  with  the  habits  and 
thought  of  the  age)  of  but  little  moment; — the  Sopher- 
im  or  students  of  scriptures,  in  those  times  were  sim- 
ply anxious  for  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  not 
for  the  ascertainment  of  their  precise  historical  origin. 
It  was  of  the  utmost  importance  to  declare  that 
especiallfy  Isaiah  forty  to  sixty-six  was  a  proph- 
etic    work    of    the    highest    order;     this    was    reason 


ISAIAH  TO  DANIEL.  221 

sufficient  (the  Sopherim  may  have  had  other  reas- 
ons, such  as  phraseological  affinities  in  forty  to 
sixty-six,)  but  this  was  sufficient  for  ascribing  them 
to  the  ToyaA  prophet  Isaiahs  Wlien  the  view  had  once 
obtained  currency,  it  would  naturally  become  a  tradi- 
tion. The  question  of  Isaianic  or  non-Isaianic  origin  of 
the  disputed  prophecies  must  be  decided  on  the  grounds 
of  exegesis  alone.  *  *  *  It  will  be  remembered  th-at  our 
prophet  himself  flouri^ed  in  the  eighth  cenliury  B.  €.^ 
and  that  the  Babylonian  captivity  intervened. 

"The  fault  of  combatants  has  been  that  each  party 
has  only  seen  'one  sfde  of  the  shield.'  It  wifl  be  admit- 
ted by  philological  students  that  the  exegetical  data 
supplied  by  Isaiah  forty  to  sixty-six,  are  conjflicting, 
and  therefore  susceptible  of  no  simple  solution.  In 
other  words  Isaiah  forty  to  sixty,  six  cannot  haive  been 
written  as  it  stands  either  by  Isaiah,  or  by  a  prophet 
at  the  close  of  the  exile.  This  remark  it  is  true  applies 
chiefly  to  the  portion  which  begins  at  Hi.  13.  The 
earlier  parts  of  Isaiah  -forty  to  sixty-six,  admits  of  a 
perfectly  consistent  interpretation  from  first  to  last. 
There  is  nothing  in  it  to  indicate  the  author's  stand- 
ing-point is  earlier  than  the  Babylonian  captivity.  His 
object  is  to  warn,  stimulate  and  console  the  captive 
Jews.  *  *  *  At  lii.  13,  new  phenomena  begin  to  show 
themselves,  indicative,  indeed,  of  a  changed  stancfing- 
point,  but  at  least  of  another  date  and  pen." 

Many  more  quotations  from  different  authors 
might  be  given  to  show  that  Isaiah,  like  most 
of  the  books  thus  far  examined,  is  only  a  mo- 
saic. 

The  fifty-third  chapter  of  this  book  has  be^i 
supposed  to  apply  to  tiie  "man  of  Nazareth,*' 
but,  if  this  were    the    time    and    place    I    woiald 


222      THE   BIBLE   AND   THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

show  that  it  cannot  possibly  have  any  referenct 
to  the  world's  supposed  savior.  It  refers  to  the 
true  Israel,  that  is,  to  those  Jews  who  were 
faithfiil  during  their  captivity. 

•  JEREMIAH. 

The  next  in  order  of  the  prophets  as  we  have 
them  is  Jeremiah,  sometimes  called  the  ''weeping 
prophet."  He  was  a  very  sad  man,  and  said 
more  doleful  things  than  all  the  other  prophets 
put  togetiier.  He  was  so  sad  and  doleful  that 
the  word  Jeremiah  ha.s  in  a  sense  come  to  signify 
dolefulness.  When  a  speech  is  filled  with  thrusts 
and  warnings  against  supposed  evils  which  it  is 
hardly  possible  to  meet,  tiie  newspapers  call  it  a 
Jeremiad. 

Signs  of  the  Babylonish  captivity  began  to 
manifest  themselves  earlj^  in  the  days  of  Jere- 
miah, about  650  to  550  before  Christ,  and  Jere- 
miah was  faithful  in  warning  the  Jews  of  them. 

It  is  supposed  that  chapter  x.  to  xvi.  is  an  in- 
terpolation. With  that  exception  perhaps  all  of 
the  supposed  book  of  Jeremiah  except  the  last 
three  ehaptet^  w-as  written  by  the  prophet 
whose  naTiie  it  bears. 

This  prophecy  really  divides  itself  into  three 
parts.  The  first  reaches  from  chapter  one  to 
and  includes  chapter  forty -five.  This  part  is 
made  up  of  threats  to  the  Hebrews  of  both  the 
Jewish  and  Israelitish  kingdoms,  and  prophecies 
concerning  their  religious  and  national  downfall. 

The  second  part  runs  to  chapter  fifty  and  is  a 


ISAIAH  TO  DANIEL.  223 

Jeremiad  against  Babylon  and  other  foreign  na- 
tions. Then  follows  the  three  chapters  added 
by  some  later  writer. 

Jeremiah  prophecies  of  seventy  j'ears  captivity 
which  shall  come  upon  the  Hebrews.  The  cap- 
tivity of  the  Jews  did  not  last  seventy  years. 
In  fact  it  was  really  only  sixty  years  in  dura- 
tion. 

Jeremiah  proved  himself  to  be  about  as  falli- 
ble as  the  other  prophets.  He  prophesied,  not 
only  of  the  return  of  Judah,  but  of  the  return 
of  all  Israel  to  its  own  land;  in  this  he  was  par- 
tially if  not  wholly  mistaken.  Some  of  the  Jews 
did  retuE-n;  but  if  the  other  tribes  of  Israel  did 
return  it  has  not  been  recorded-.  Indeed  j^man 
are  even  now  looking  for  their  speedy  return;  so 
some  have  in  nearly  every  generation  of  the 
world.  These  prophecies  are  pointed  to  as  not 
having  been  fulfilled,  but  as  predictions  w^hich 
must  very  shortly  be  accomplished. 

Jeremiah  and  others  prophesied  of  the  restora- 
tion of  David's  throne,  and  all  the  Jewish  polity, 
even  the  ceremonial  law,  and  all  tliat  to  last  as 
long  as  there  was  sun  or  moon.  This  included 
the  return  of  the  twelve  tribes,  and  all  was  to 
be  accomplished  within  seventy  years.  Nations 
whose  servants  they  were,  were  in  turn  to  serve 
them. 

Daniel  understood  that  they  were  to  be  fulfined 
within  seventy  years.  This  conclusion  he  reached 
after  reading  Jeremiah's  prophecies.  (See  Dan. 
ix.  2).    No  one  could  arrive  at  any  other  conclu- 


224     THE   BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

sion.  (See  Jer,  xxv.  11).  These  predictions  not 
only  speak  of  the  return  of  the  Jews,  but  of  all 
Israel.  All  acknowledge  that  Israel  never  has 
returned;  on  the  contrary,  it  has  lost  its  identity. 
That  Israel  is  to  return,  and  that  David's  throne 
and  kingdom — that  is  a  re-united  kingdom — is  to 
be  established  is  proved  by  all  the  prophets.  As 
we  are  now  only  interested  in  Jeremiah,  I  will 
only  ask  the  reader  who. has  the  patience  to  do 
so,  to  get  his  Bible  and  look  up  the  following 
texts.  Jer.  xxiii.  5-8;  xxv.  11-12;  xxx.  2,  10,  18; 
xxxi.     Whole  chapter. 

EZEKIEL. 

The  next  prophet  to  pass  under  reviews  is  Eze- 
kiel.  Next  to  Daniel,  or  to  the  supposed  writ- 
ings of  Daniel,  in  the  Old  Testament,  (be  it  re- 
membered that  Daniel,  never  wrote  one  "word  of 
the  book  which  took  his  name),  and  to  John  in 
the  New  Testament  the  writings  of  Ezekiel  are 
the  most  Apocalyptic  of  any  in  the  Bible.  That 
is,  he  was  the  most  imaginative  concerning  a 
splendid  future  for  his  people  of  any  of  the  bibli- 
cal writers.  If  one  of  his  visions  proved  to  be 
literally  true  I  have  failed  to  find  it.  The  facts 
never  justified  the  pictures  his  wild  imagination 
painted.    Rev.  Mr.  Chadwick  says: 

"The  last  eight  chapters  of  Ezekiel  are  a  wonderful 
treasure  house  for  the  modern  scientific  critic.  They 
could  never  have  been  written  if  the  priestly  legislation 
of  the  Pentateuch  had  been  in  existence  at  the  time. 
Many  of  their  particulars  would  have  been  superfluous; 
others  would  have  been  simply  blasphemous.     He  tells 


ISAIAH  TO  DANIEL."  225 

US  whj^  the  sons  of  Aaron  were  to  be  the  only  priests. 
But  the  Pentateuch  makes  it  appear  that  tiiey  had  al- 
\Ya3^s  been  the  onlj^  priests  by  supernatural  decree.  •  o 
wonder  the  doctors  of  the  s\niagogue  hesitated  to  ad- 
mit B-zekiel  into  the  Canon!  When  the  temple  was  re- 
built, his  plan,  as  funi-ished  in  his  fortieth  and  succeed- 
ing chapters,  was  not  followed.  Its  ground  plan  would 
have  occupied  the  total  area  of  the  city.  This  again 
is  one  of  the  prophecies  about  which  little  is  said  by 
the  apologists." 

The  fact  is  Ezekiel  was  a  priest  of  Jerusalem, 
and  always  manifested  much  more  of  the  priest 
than  he  did  of  the  prophet.  He  was  one  of  the 
ten  thousand  Jews  that  was  carried  away  cap- 
tive from  Jerusalem  to  Babylon  about  the  year 
597  before  our  era.  His  prophecy  contains  the 
first  hints  to  be  found  of  that  ultra  pne*;tly 
legislation  which  was  supposed  to  come  from 
Moses  and  was  afterward  brought  out  in  the 
Pentateuch,  more  especially  in  Leviticus  than  in 
any  other  book. 

His  vision,  while  in  Babylon,  of  the  rebuilding 
of  the  tenxple  msLj  have  been  honest  enough,  but 
it  is  doubtful  whether  there  v^as  a  nation  on 
earth  at  that  time  that  could  have  carried  it 
out. 

Ezekiel,  as  I  could  prove,  if  time  and  space 
were  not  at  a  premium,  was  a  good  physical 
medium;  but,  as  I  said  before,  if  one  of  his 
numerous  predictions  ever  came  true  I  have  not 
found  it.  As  proof  that  his  visions  wei*e  not 
true  I  wall  refer  the  reader  to  Ezek.  xi.  21-24, 
and  xiv.  9. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTATvIENT. 

When  Daniel  was  Written — Not  less  than  two  Author? — 
Chadwick  on  Daniel — Encyclopedia  Britannica  on  the 
Same — Fulfilled  Before  Written— Five  Reasons  Why  Dan- 
iel could  not  have  been  Written  long  Before  Christ — Words 
in  Daniel  not  known  long  at  the  time  of  the  Captivity — 
Relates  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes — The  Twelve  Minor  Pro- 
phets— Hosea  Among  the  Earlier  Prophets — Did  he  Mar- 
ry two  Naughty  Women? — Only  an  Illustration — He  De- 
nounces Prophets,  Priests  and  People — Pleads  With  Is- 
rsiel  to  Repent,  and  Promises  Great  Blessings — Amos  no 
Prophet — Predictions  concerning  David's  Throne — An 
Honorable  but  Misled  Man — Did  not  like  Ceremonies 
—Foretells  a  Famine— Obadiah  of  Little  Importance — The 
Book  of  Jonah— Jonah  not  its  Author — All  in  the  past 
Tense — Did  Jonah  Think  to  Escape  God  by  Going  to 
Tarshish? — Nehemiah  Knew  Nothing  of  Jonah — Didactic 
Fiction— Who  Believes,  eto. — Dr.  Gladden  on  Jonah — Micah 

—  When  he  Prophesied— Did  he  prophecy  of  the  Messiah? 

—  Hii  Prognoses  Faihires — Against  Ass3'ria  and   Nineveh 

—  Did  he  foretell  Railroad  Trains? — Habbakuk's  Prophecy 
— Zephaniah — Israel  Suffered  Justl3- — Haggai  asks  Zeruba- 
bel  to  Rebuild  the  Temple — He  Promises  Much — His  Book 
Carelessly  Edited — A  Mediumistic  Work — Threats  and 
Promises  About  Jerusalem — None  of  Them  True — Malachi- 
Meaning  of  the  Word — Considered  Last  and  Least  of  all 
the  Prophets. 

The  next  prophet   in   the   order   laid    down  in 
the  Bible  is 


DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT.    227 
DANIEL. 

While  Daniel  himself  is  referred  to  as  a  cotem- 
porary  with  Ezekiel,  and  was  in  Babylon  with 
him,  the  book  bearing  his  name  was  not  writ- 
ten until  about  one  hundred  and  sixty-five  years 
before  Christ.  This  will  not  now  be  disputed 
by  any  respectable  critic. 

Whether  such  a  man  as  Daniel  ever  lived  is  a 
question.  His  name  is  mentioned  in  no  other 
Old  Testament  book  excepting  the  book  of  Eze- 
kiel. Ezekiel,  as  I  have  said,  was  a  cotempor- 
ary,  both  as  to  time  and  place  with  Daniel,  3^et 
Ezekiel  classes  him  w4th  recognized  and  past 
sages.    See  Ezek.  xiv.  14;  xxviii  3. 

The  first  six  chapters  of  the  book  of  Daniel 
do  not  claim  to  have  been  written  by  him.  The 
others  do,  but  are  not.  They  w^ere  forgeries 
in  his  name. 

The  book  of  Daniel  is  Apocalyptic — not  pro- 
phetic. It  is  now  acknowledged  by  all  critics  to 
have  been  written  in  the  days  of  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes.  In  fact  the  evidences  are  so  strong  that 
no  critic  would  dare  risk  his  reputation  in  their 
denial.  This  book  was  called  out  by  the  ex- 
terminating warfare  made  by  Epiphanes  upon 
the  Jews.  The  intent  in  writing  this  book  was 
probably  as  pious  as  that  of  writing  any  other 
book  in  our  Bible. 

Of  course  the  Jews  having  made  their  Canon 
before  that  time,  and  that  book  having  no  ex- 
istence, could  not  get  into  it.  Nehemiah  had  no 
alternative  but  to  leave  it    out  of  his  catalogue 


228     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

for  ttie  same  reason,  although  Daniel  was  be- 
fore him.  Nehemiah's  Canon  included  Ezekiel  and 
other  later  books.  I  said  this  book  Avas  not 
written  by  Daniel.  On  this  point  Rev.  Mr. 
Chadwick  says: 

"Speakioig  squarely  it  (the  book  of  Daniel)  was  a  pious 
fraud.  It  was  pious.  The  man  who  wrote  the  book 
was  an  earnest  patriot;  filled  with  an  honest  hatred  of 
injustice.  He  had  a  noble  end  in  view;  to  strengthen 
and  console  his  fellow  countrymen.  He  thought  it  jus- 
tified the  mean«s.  But  these  were  fraudulent.  A  book 
written  165  B.  C,  was  put  forth  as  a  book  written 
537  B.  C.  But  the  subjective  immortality  of  such  an 
act  as  this  was  not  what  it  would  be  now.  Then 
there  w^as  not  the  sense  of  ownership  there  is  now. 
The  copyist  easily  glided  into  the  radactor.  He  added 
and  he  took  away  to  suit  his  ideas.  It  was  a  very 
common  thing  especially  a  little  later  in  Christian  cen- 
turies, to  try  to  float  one's  book  with  the  great  name 
of  some  apostle  or  father  in  the  church.  The  Apocry- 
phal books  of  Esdras  are  a  case  in  point,  Esdras  be- 
ing the  Greek  for  Ezra,  and  these  books  written  hun- 
dreds of  years  after  his  death  pretending  to  be  written 
by  him.  Other  instances  are  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon, 
tht  book  of  Enoch,  attributed  in  the  New  Testament 
to  "the  seventh  from  Adam'  but  actually  written  a  lit- 
tle before  Christ;  and  some  of  it  a  little  after;  in  the 
New  Testament  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  various  Epis- 
tles." 

I  could  fill  forty  pages  of  this  manuscript  with 
similar  quotations  from  Sunderland,  Gladden^ 
Dean  Stanley  and  others,  but  I  promised  brev- 
ity, and  will  at  this  time  content  myself  with  a 
single  greatly  abridged  quotation   from   the  En- 


DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT,    229 

cyclopedia  Britannica.  Under  the  heading  'TDan- 
iel,"  it  has  the  following: 

"The  most  puzzling  discrepancy,  however,  relates  to 
the  name  of  the  Medo-Persian  king,  who  'received  from 
Ood's  hands'  the  'distributed'  Babylonian  empire  (v. 
28,  31.)  The  Book  of  Daniel  states  (v.  31)  that  this 
was  Darius  the  Alede.  Profane  history  asserts  that  it 
was  C3'rus,  the  Persian.  *  *  *  But  this  is  not  the  onlj' 
■difficulity  about  Danus  the  Mede.  In  ix.  1,  we  are 
told  that  he  was  the  son  of  Ahasuerus,  who,  on  phil- 
ological grounds  must  be  identified  with  Xerxes. 
This,  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  facts  concern- 
ing Belteshazzar,  suggests  that  the  author,  or  editor 
fell  into  three  errors,  by  supposing  (1)  that  the  con- 
querer  of  Babj^on  was  not  Cj^rus  but  Darius  I;  (2) 
that  Darius  came  after,  instead  of  before  Xerxes;  and 
(3)  that  he  was  son,  whereas  he  was  realh-  father,  of 
that  monarch.  There  are  two  'undesigned  coin  .. 
■ces,'  to  be  mentioned  presently,  which  appear  to  con- 
firm this  view. 

"Thus  far  the  evidence  preponderates  against  the 
theory'  that  the  narratives  in  the  book  of  Daniel — or 
to  be  quite  safe,  let  us  say,  the  narratives  in  their 
present  form — were  written  by  a  resident  in  Babylon. 
The  other  historical  inaccuracies  ought  to  be  slurred 
over,  though  they  are  certainly  unfavorable  to  the  au- 
thorship of  Daniel.  One  is  the  chronological  statement 
in  i.  1.     It   ma^^  fairly  be  urged      (a)   U-rA,  if  the 

battle  of  Carchemish  took  place  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim  (Jer.  xlvi.  2.)  Jerusalem  cannot  have  been 
captured  in  the  third;  and  (h)  that  our  one  certainly 
cotemporary  authorit3%  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  nowhere 
alludes  to  a  captivity  at  this  period.  The  other  is  the 
statement  (vi.  1)  that  Darius  the  Mede  appointed  one 
hundred  and  twenty  satraps  (so  in  Hebrew,)  whereas 


230     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Darius  Hystaspis  only  mentions  twenty-three  satrapies. 
{Records  of  the  past,  vii.  88.)  A  similar  apparent 
confusion  between  satrapies  and  inferior  governments 
appear  in  the  Alexandrine  translation  of  I  Kin.  x.  1, 
5.  This  translation  was  made  in  the  Greek  period, 
presumably,  therefore,  the  book  of  Daniel  was  written 
(or  edited)  in  the  Greek  period.  This  it  should  be  ad- 
ded, is  one  of  the  'undesigned  coincidences'  which  con- 
firm a  view  mentioned  above  respecting  Darius  the 
Mede." 

The  events  recorded  in  this  Apocalyptical  book 
had  all  been  fulfilled  before  the  author  took  his 
pen  in  his  hand  to  -write.  In  speaking  of  chap- 
ter 11,  Dr.  Gladden  says: 

"But  there  is  one  portion  of  the  book,  the  eleventh 
chapter,  which  is  admitted  to  be  a  minute  and  realis- 
tic description  of  the  coaHtions  and  conflicts  between 
the  Graeco-Syrian  and  the  Gr^eco-Egyptian  kings, 
events  which  took  place  about  the  middle  of  the  sec- 
ond century  before  Christ.  These  personages  are  not 
named,  but  they  are  vividly  described,  and  the  in- 
trigues and  vicissitudes  of  that  portion  of  Jewish  his- 
tory in  which  they  are  the  chief  actors  are  fully  told. 
Moreover  the  recital  is  put  in  the  future  tense;  'There 
shall  stand  up  yet  three  kings  in  Persia;  and  the  fourth 
shall  be  richer  than  they  all;  and  when  he  is  waxed 
strong  through  his  riches,  he  shall  stir  up  all  against 
the  realm  of  Greece."     —Who    Wrote  the  Bible,  p.  170. 

Some  of  the  reasons  w^hy  the  book  of  Daniel 
could  not  be  written  before  the  second  century 
before  Christ  should  be  here  summarized.  I  will 
present  them  as  follows: 

1.  First  the  book  is  not  in  the  first  Jewish 
Canon,  a  collection  that  was  made  not  less  than 


DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT.    231 

one  hundred  3'ears  after  this  supposed  Daniel 
lived.  It  is  found  onh-  among  the  later  and  the 
supplementarj-  writings  of  the  Jewish  scriptures 
— that  is,  it  was  gathei^ed  up  among  these  writ- 
ings which  were  not  known  to  exist  in  the  da3'S 
when  Nehemiah  made  his  compilation. 

2.  There  is  no  mention  made  of  even  the  ex- 
istence of  Daniel  among  the  Jewish  exiles.  If  he 
w'as  so  important  a  personage  as  this  book  rep- 
resents how  could  he  have  been  thus  ignored? 

3.  A  writer — one  of  the  writers  of  the  Apocr\^- 
pha,  by  the  name  of  Jesus,  who  lived  200  A^ears 
before  Christ,  published  a  catalogue  of  all  the 
great  worthies  in  Israel;  how  did  it  happen  that 
the  name  of  Daniel  was  left  out  of  that  cata- 
logue? 

4.  Daniel  was  represented  to  have  lived  in 
Bab3don,  near,  or  at  the  time  the  Jews  were  de- 
livered from  captivity-,  yet  his  prophecies  con- 
tain no  intimation  that  they  shall  ever  be  de- 
livered from  Bab^donish  captivity.  While  it  is 
supposed  that  he  could  prophecy  of  the  first  ad- 
vent of  Christ,  and  his  death;  of  the  rise  and 
fall  of  kingdoms;  of  their  several  divisions;  and 
of  their  various  phases  of  government;  he  could 
even  tell  the  year,  if  not  the  ver^^  da^-  of  the  ad- 
vent, he  could  not  announce  that  there  Avas  a 
speedy  deliverance  coming  to  them  as  a  people. 
Certainh'  if  tbe  prophetic  light  shone  through 
Daniel  at  all  it  did  not  shine  as  a  "lamp"  about 
the  feet  of  those  who  enjoved  his  predictions. 

5.  Scholars  inform    us    that    th-re  were  manv 


232     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Persian  words  and  some  Greek  words  used  in 
the  book  of  Daniel,  words  not  in  existence  at 
the  time  he  was  said  to  have  written.  An  ar- 
ticle written  by  Horace  Greeley  would  hardly 
talk  m^^ch  about  the  telephone  or  telephonic 
messages.  Such  talk  in  articles  pretending  to 
come  from  him  would  be  anachronistic.  There 
are  not  less  than  thirteen  words  in  the  book  of 
Daniel  Avhich  had  no  existence  at  the  time  it  is 
claimed  that  he  wrote.  Words  have  their 
biograph3^  as  men  have  theirs.  One  part  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  h..s  been  to  hunt  up  the  biog- 
raphy of  w^ords. 

As  I  cannot  take  the  time  and  space  to  quote 
from  authors  as  I  would  like  I  will  say  that  the 
best  scholars  tell  us  that  there  are  no  Chaldean 
or  Babylonian  provincalism  in  the  book  of  Dan- 
iel. Aramaicisms  are  found  in  plenty;  the  Aramaic 
language  began  to  be  the  popular  langi.iJUj?:e 
among-  the  Tews  about  three  hundred  veara  be- 
fore  our  era,  and  long  after  the  Daniel  spoken 
of  in  Ezekiel  xiv.  14  had  passed  on  to  the  home 
of  his  fathers. 

2.  While  there  are  no  Persian  or  Greek  words 
occurring  in  the  writings  of  any  of  the  said-to- 
be  CO  temporaries  of  Daniel,  there  are  said  to  be 
nine  Persian  words  and  several  Greek  words  in 
the  book  of  Daniel;  some  of  them  the  names  of 
musical  instruments  invented  and  named  by  the 
Persians  and  Greeks— invented  long  after  the 
Babjdonish  captivity. 

3.  There  are   internal    difficulties    standing  in 


DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT.    233 

the  Wcty  of  the  book  of  Daniel  being  historically 
correct.  In  the  first  chapter  King  Nebuchadnez- 
zar is  apparently  well  acquainted  with  Daniel; 
but  in  chapter  ii.  25,  when  Daniel  is  to  interpret 
the  king's  dream  he  is  brought  into  the  presence 
of  the  king  and  introduced  as  "one  of  the  cap- 
tives of  Judah" — a  man  just  discovered. 

I  can  see  how  a  writer  two  or  three  hundred 
years  after  the  departure  of  all  these  people 
could  make  such  a  mistake  but  how  the  hero  of 
the  book  could  commit  such  a  blunder  is  not 
easily  discerned. 

The  Encyclopedia  Britannica  says:  "There  is 
a  growing  feeling  that  the  narratives  in  the  book 
before  us,  (Daniel),  could  not  have  been  written 
by  a  resident  of  Babylon."  It  supposes  that  if 
there  is  any  effort  at  history  there,  the  element 
of  historical  tradition  is  not  strong  enough  to 
enable  one  to  detect  it. 

It  IS  well  known  that  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
who  lived  in  the  second  century  before  Christ, 
was  a  great  lover  of  the  musical  instrument 
which  is  in  this  book  translated  the  dulcimer, 
but  Nebuchadnezzar  never  heard  of  such  an  in- 
strument. This  is  an  anachronism  too  palpable 
to  be  lightly  passed  over  by  scholars.  It  proves 
that  the  book  containing  it  was  not  written  by 
the  Daniel  who  was  among  the  Hebrew  captives. 

Josephus,  who  never  doubted  that  the  book  of 
Daniel  was  written  by  Daniel  in  the  sixth  cen- 
tury before  our  era,  thought  that  he  saw  about 


234     THE   BIBLE  AND   THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

all  the  salient  points  of  Daniel's  prophecj  ful- 
filled in  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

TWELVE    MINOR    PROPHETS. 

We  no^w  come  to  an  examination  of  the  twelve 
minor  prophets,  I  shall  treat  them  in  the  same 
order  as  I  have  the  others;  that  is,  I  shall  take 
them  in  the  same  order  as  they  stand  in  our 
Bible,  beginning  with  Hosea,  and  ending  with 
Malachi.  They  are  called  minor  prophets,  and 
they  certainly  are  so,  some  of  them  in  a  double 
sense  of  the  word.  The  one  of  the  least  imtport- 
ance  of  all,  as  a  prophecy,  that  of  Jonah,  I  may 
treat  somewhat  at  length. 

The  first  of  the  minor  prophets  is 

HOSEA.. 

The  date  of  his  prophecy,  in  our  Bible,  is*  7S5  to 
725  B.  C.  It  is  thought  that  this  date  is  not  far 
from  correct;  this  places  him  amongst  the 
earliest  of  the  prophets.  He  was  before  either 
of  those  already  examined. 

Hosea  lived  in  Northern  Israel,  and  testified 
alike  against  the  sins  of  Israel  and  Judah.  The 
first  words  of  this  book  tell  us  that,  "The  word 
of  the  Lord  that  came  unto  Hosea,  the  son  of 
Beeri,  in  the  days  of  Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz  and 
Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah,  and  in  the  days  of 
Jeroboam,  the  son  of  Joash,  king  of  Israel." 

These  words  furnish  a  clue  to  the  time  when 
this  prophet  did  his  work.  This  prophet  has 
been  terribly  criticised  by  both  Infidel  and  Chris- 
tian   for    obeving:    the    Lord    in    marrying    two 


DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT.    235 

adulterous  women,  hven  so  gooa  and  great  a 
man  as  Dean  Stanley  takes  this  as  a  matter  of 
history.  I  concede  that  it  looks  that  way;  but 
we  must  remember  that  this  is  poetry,  and  we 
must  allow  the  prophet  a  little  "poetic  license" 
in  illustrating  his  subject. 

The  prophet  is  dealing  with  two  separate 
nations,  Israel  and  Judah;  both  had  sworn  allegi- 
ance to  Yahweh;  both  had  violated  their  vows 
of  true  devotion  to  Yahweh,  and  had  taken 
other  gods;  therefore  both  were  cast  off.  As  a 
man  would  put  away  an  adulterous  wife  so 
Yahweh  had  turned  away  from  these  two 
nations.  I  much  prefer  to  give  this  an  interpre- 
tation which  will  preserve  the  self  respect  of 
Hosea  and  his  God. 

That  Israel  had,  in  the  prophet's  estimation, 
entirely,  gone  astray,  is  proven  by  chapter  iv. 
1,  2,  which  says: 

"Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  ye  children  of  Israel; 
for  the  Lord  hath  a  controversy  with  the  inhabitants 
of  the  land,  because  there  is  no  truth  nor  mtrcj,  nor 
knowledge  of  God  in  the  land.  By  swearing  and  lying 
and  killing  and  stealing,  and  committing  adultery, 
they  break  out,  and  blood  toucheth  blood." 

His  denunciations  extend  to  all,  even  to  the 
prophets  and  the  priests.  In  verses  5  and  6,  of 
the  chapter  above  quoted  he  says: 

"Therefore  shalt  thou  fall  in  the  day,  and  the  prophet 
shall  fall  with  thee — in  the  night,  and  I  will  destroy 
thy  mother.  My  people  are  destroyed  for  lack  of 
knowledge.     I  will  also  reject  thee,  that  thou  shalt  not 


236     THE   BIRLE  AND  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

be  a  priest  unto  me;  seeing  thou  hast  forgotten  the 
law   of  thy  God,  I  will  also  forget  thy  children." 

The  prophet  threatens  the  same  judgment  on 
priest  and  people.    He  says  of  the  priests: 

"They  eat  up  the  sin  of  my  people  and  they  set 
their  heart  on  their  iniquity.  And  there  shall  be  like 
people  like  priest;  and  I  will  punish  them  for  their  ways, 
and  reward  them  for  their  doings."     Verses  8,  9. 

The  prophet  as  well  as  the  priest  comes  in 
for  his  share  in  this  general  denunciation.  In 
chapter  ix.  7,  8,  he  says: 

"The  days  of  visitation  are  come,  the  days  of  recom- 
pense are  come;  Israel  shall  know  it;  the  prophet  is  a 
fool,  the  spiritual  man  is  mad,  for  the  multitude  of 
thine  iniquity,  and  the  great  hatred.  The  watchman 
of  Ephraim  was  with  my  God;  but  the  prophet  is  as  a 
snare  of  a  fowler  in  all  his  ways,  and  hatred  in  the 
house  of  his  God." 

Notwithstanding  the  sins  of  Israel;  that  is  the 
Northern  portion,  where  Hosea  lived,  he  does 
not  give  up  all  hope.  In  chapter  xiv  1,  he  exhorts 
Israel  to  return  to  the  Lord;  by  this  he  means 
forsake  other  gods  and  return  to  virtue.  He 
thinks  he  gets  word  from  Yahweh,  who  says: 

*T  will  heal  their  backsliding,  I  will  love  them  freely; 
for  mine  anger  is  turned  away  from  him.  I  will  be  as 
the  dew  unto  Israel;  he  shall  grow  as  the  lily,  and 
cast  forth  his  roots  as  Lebanon.  They  that  dwell  un- 
der his  shadow  shall  return;  they  shall  revive  as  the 
corn,  and  grow  as  the  vine;  the  scent  thereof  shall  be 
as  the  wine  of  Lebanon."     Verses  4-7. 

JOEL 

is    the    next    in    the    series     of     minor    proph- 


DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT,    237 

ets.  It  is  not  easy  to  tell  just  when  he  prophe- 
cied;  the  internal  testimony  seems  to  favor  the 
idea  of  its  being  sometime  previous  to  the  re- 
turn from  Babylon.  Verse  1-3,  of  chapter  iii. 
read  as  follows: 

"For,  behold,  in  those  daj^s,  and  at  that  time,  Avhen 
I  shall  bring  again  the  captivity  of  Judah  and  Jerusa- 
lem I  will  also  gather  all  nations,  and  will  bring  them 
down  into  the  'valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  and  will  plead 
with  them  there  for  my  people  and  for  my  heritage, 
Israel  whom  they  have  scattered  and  parted  m}^  land. 
And  they  have  cast  lots  for  mj^  people;  and  have  giv- 
en a  boy  for  an  harlot,  and  sold  a  girl  for  wine,  that 
they  might  drink  strong  "drink." 

This  is  evidently  what  the  captors  of.  Judah 
were  doing  at  that  time.  There  are  passages  in 
Joel  which  seem  to  indicate  tha.t  some  of  the 
Jews  had  already  returned  to  their  own  land. 
Those  who  have  seen  the  grasshopper  plagues 
in  Kansas  and  Nebraska  will  be  able  to  appreci- 
ate what  is  said  in  chapter  i.  2,  3.  There  the 
prophet  sa^'s: 

"Hear  this,  ye  old  men,  and  give  ear,  all  ye  inhabi- 
tants of  the  land.  Hath  this  been  in  your  days,  or 
even  in  the  days  of  your  fathers?  TeH  ye  j'-our  child- 
ren of  it,  and  let  them  teH  their  children,  and  their 
children  anotrher  generation.  That  which  the  palmer- 
worm  hath  left  hath  the  locust  eaten;  and  that  which 
the  locnst  hath  left  hath  the  caulcer  worm  eaten,  and 
that  which  the  cankerworm  hath  left  hath  the  cater- 
piller  eaten/' 

This  description  of  the  march  of  the  armies  of 
locusts,  army  worms    and    caterpillars,  which  is 


238      THE  BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

full  of  poetic  beauty,  has  by  many  modern  ex- 
positors been  applied  to  the  western  grasshop- 
per plague  and  has  been  to  them  proofs  of  the 
near  approach  of  the  end  of  the  world. 

The  prediction  found  in  the  second  chapter 
and  from  verse  twenty -eight  to  the  end  of  the 
chapter  has  been  applied  to  the  manifestations 
which  occurred  on  the  first  pente®ost  of  the 
Christian  Dispensation;  hvtt  it  does  not  belong 
there.  The  prophecy  that  the  children  of  Judah 
should  sell  the  ioihabitants  of  Tyre  a?nd  Sydon  to 
the  Sabin^s,  was  never  fulfilled.  Nor  was  tha€  other 
prediction,  that  while  Egypt  and  Edom  should 
be  a  desolation  Judah  should  dwell  in  the  land 
forever  and  Jerusalem  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion. As  Rev.  R.  Heber  Newton  said:  '^Unful- 
filled  prophecies  are  numerous  though  one  seL 
dom  hears  of  them. 

AMOS 

says  he  prophesied  rn  the  day*s  of  Uzziah, 
King  of  Judah.  That  was  betwee^i  seven  and 
eight  hundred  years  before  Christ.  I  think  that 
there  is  little  doubt  but  that  Amos  was  an  hon- 
est man;  but  he  certainly  was  correct  v^hen  he 
said,  ''I  am  no  prophet,  neither  the  son  of  a 
prophet."  His  predictions  nevar  met  an  accom- 
plishment. The  last  one  of  them  is  recorded  in 
Amos  ix.  11-15,  and  is  a  fair  sample  of  his  pre- 
dictions.   It  reads  as  follows: 

"In  that  day  I  wiil  i«aise  up  the  tabeimacle  of  David 
that  is  fallen,   and  close  up  the  breaches  theieof;   and 


DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT.    239 

Will  raise  up  nis  rums,  and  1  will  build  it  as  in  days 
of  old;  that  the^'  may  possess  the  remnant  of  Edom, 
and  of  all  the  heathen,  which  are  called  by  my  name, 
saith  the  Lord  that  doeth  this.  Behold  the  days  come 
saith  the  Lord,  that  the  plowman  shall  overtake  the 
reaper,  and  the  treader  of  grapes  him  that  soweth  seed; 
and  the  mountains  shall  drop  sweet  wine,  and  allthehiUs 
shall  melt.  And  I  will  bring  again  the  captivity  of  my 
people  of  Israel,  and  they  shall  bui-ld  the  waste  cities, 
and  inhabit  them;  and  thej'  shall  plant  vineyards  and 
drink  the  wine  thereof;  they  shaH  also  make  gardens, 
and  eat  the  fruit  of  them.  And  I  will  plant  them  upon 
their  own  land,  and  they  shall  no  more  be  pulled  up 
out  of  their  land  which  I  have  given  them^  saith  the 
Lord  thy  God." 

What  truth  is  there  in  this  prediction?  Has 
the  fallen  tabernacle  of  David  been  raised?  Have 
the  breaches  been  closed?  Is  it  built  up  as  in 
days  of  old?  Has  Israel  possessed  Edom?  This 
same  promise  was  made  by  Joel  but  has  it  been 
fulfilled?  Has  the  captivity  of  Israel  been  brought 
back?  Have  the  waste  cities  been  rebuilded  and 
inhabited?  Are  the  Israelites  planting  vineyards 
in  that  land,  and  eating  the  fruit  thereof?  Has 
Israel  gone  into  the  land  to  be  no  more  pulled 
out? 

I  said  I  believed  this  prophet  was  a  good  and 
honest  man;  I  also  believe  that  he  said  many 
good  things,  but  as  a  prophet  he  better 
have  continued  in  the  sheep  business.  Amos 
said:  "Surely  the  Lord,  God  will  do  nothing  but 
he  revealeth  his  secret  to  his  ser^-ants,  the  proph- 


240     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

ets.''  Yet  he  never  revealed  a  great  truth  to 
this  man. 

Amos  was  a  poor  man  himself,  and  always 
took  the  side  of  the  poor  as  against  the  rich. 
In  chapter  v.  11;  he  saj^s: 

"For  as  much  therefore  as  your  treading  is  upon  the 
poor,  and  ye  take  from  him  burdens  of  wheat;  ye  have 
built  houses  of  hewn  stone,  but  ye  shall  not  dweH  m 
them;  ye  have  planted  pleasant  vineyards  but  ye  shall 
not  drink  the  wine  of  them.  For  I  know  your  mani- 
fold transgressions  and  your  mighty  sirns;  they  afflict 
the  just,  they  take  a  bribe,  and  they  turn  aside  the 
poor  in  the  gate  from  their  right." 

In  chapter  v.  21-24  he  says: 

"I  hate,  I  despise  your  feast  days  and  will  not  smell 
in  your  solemn  assemblies.  Though  you  offer  me  burnt 
offerings  and  your  meat  offerings,  I  will  not  accept 
them;  neither  wiH  I  regard  the  peace  offerings  of  your 
fat  beasts.  Take  thou  away  from  me  the  noise  of  thy 
songs;  for  I  will  not  hear  the  melody  of  thy  viols. 
But  let  judgment  run  down  as  waters,  and  righteous- 
ness *as  a  mighty  stream." 

In  chapter  vi.  he  pronounced  bis  woes  upion 
those  who  were  at  ease  in  Zion.  These  woes 
extend  from  verse  one  to  verse  seven.  In  verses 
4-6  he  talks  as  follows: 

"That  lie  upon  beds  of  ivory,  and  stretch  themselves 
upon  their  couches,  and  eat  the  lambs  out  of  the  flock, 
and  calves  out  of  the  midst  of  the  stall  that  chant  the 
sound  of  the  viol,  and  invent  to  themselves  instru- 
ments of  music  like  David;  that  drink  wine  in  bowls, 
and  anoint  themselves  with  the  chief  ointments;  but 
they  are  not  grieved  for  the  affliction  of  Joseph." 

Denouncing  the  rich  as  he  does  it  is  little  won- 


DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT.    241 

dcr  that  Amaziah  wanted  him  to  leave  the  coun- 
try and  go  down  into  Judah  with  his  prediction. 
This  is  what  brings  out  from  Amos  the  denial 
that  he  is  a  prophet.  See  chapter  seven,  verses 
twelve  to  sixteen. 

He  continues  his  denunciation  in  chapter  eight, 
verses  four  to  six,  as  follows: 

"Hear  this  O  ye  that  swallow  up  the  needy,  even  to 
make  the  poor  of  the  land  fail,  saying  when  will  the 
new  moon  be  gone,  that  we  may  sell  corn?  and  the 
Sabbath,  that  we  may  set  forth  wheat?  making  the 
epha  small,  and  the  shekel  great,  and  falsifying  the 
balances  by  deceit?  that  we  may  buy  the  poor  for  sil- 
ver and  the  needy  for.  a  pair,  of  shoes;  yea,  and  sell  the 
refuse  of  the  w^heat?" 

Such  things,  as  a  matter  of  course,  are  calcu- 
lated to  destroy  all  spirituality,  hence  he  fore- 
tells in  verses  11,  12,  what  would  be  a  natural 
consequence. 

"Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord  God,  that  I 
will  send  a  famine  in  the  land,  not  a  famine  of  bread, 
nor  a  thirst  for  water,  but  of  hearing  the  words  of 
the  Lord;  and  they  shall  wander  from  sea  to  sea,  and 
from  the  north,  even  to  the  east,  they  shall  run  to  and 
fro  to  seek  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  shall  not  find 
it." 

That  there  has  in  every  busy  and  speculating 
age  been  just  such  a  famine  for  inspiration  there 
is  no  doubt. 

The  next  prophecy  in  the  Bible  is 

OBADIAH. 

It   contains    only    one    short   chapter,    and   is 


242     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

liardly  worth  mentioning.  The  marginal  date 
of  the  prophecy  is,  B.  C.  587,  but  it  was  not 
written  until  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
which  was  not  until  several  3^ears  later. 

In  verses  10-12,  the  prophet  denounces  the 
Children  of  Israel  for  standing  idly  by  and  see- 
ing Jerusalem  destroyed,  and  its  people  taken 
captive. 

From  verse  15  to  the  end  of  the  chapter  is  a 
promise  of  the  destruction  of  other  nations  and 
of  an  extension  of  the  land  of  Israel  and  Judah, 
which  has  never  been  fulfilled.  I  quote  verses 
19-21. 

"And  they  of  the  south  shall  possess  the  mount  of 
Esau;  and  they  of  the  plains  the  Philistines;  and  they 
shall  possess  the  fields  of  Ephraim  and  the  fields  of  Sa- 
maria; and  Benjamin  shall  posses  Gilead.  And  the  cap- 
tain of  the  host  of  the  Children  of  Israel  shall  possess 
that  of  the  Canaanites,  even  unto  Zerephath;  and  the 
captivity  of  Jerusalem,  which  is  in  Epharad,  shall  pos- 
sess the  cities  of  the  south.  And  saviors  shall  come  up 
on  mount  Zion  to  judge  the  mount  of  Esau;  and  the 
kingdom  shall  be  the  Lord's." 

The  next  book  to  be  examined  is  that  of 

JONAH. 

Thomas  Paine  was  not  far  wrong  in  his  esti- 
mate of  that  book,  when  he  called  it  a  * 'fiction;" 
nor  was  he  out  of  the  way  in  his  admiration 
for  its  moral  qualities.  This  book  has  been  the 
cause  of  more  doubts,  and  of  more  trouble 
among  good  Christian  people  than  any  other 
book  in  the  Old  Testament.    It  has  at  the  s»ame 


DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT.    243 

time  been  the  source  of  an  endless  amount  of  fun 
for  the  skeptic.  Had  it  not  been  for  Jesus'  ap- 
parent endorsement  of  this  book  it  is  very 
doubtful  whether  it  would  ever  have  found  its 
way  into  the  Christian  Canon.  To  those  who 
are  inclined  to  have  their  merriment  at  the  ex- 
pense of  poor  Jonah,  I  think  it  never  occurred 
that  Jonah  was  not  its  author— that  the  only 
Jonah  elsewhere  spoken  of  in  the  Old  Testament 
scriptures  had  slept  with  his  fathers  not  less 
than  three  centuries  when  the  author  of  this 
book  was  bom.  Jonah  had  no  more  to  do  with 
the  writing  of  this  book  than  George  Washing- 
ton would  have  to  do  w^ith  a  twentieth  century 
history  of  the  American  Revolution,  which  might 
happen  to  republish  some  of  the  apocryphal 
stories  now  going  the  rounds  about  him. 

The  anonymous  writer  of  this  book  always 
speaks  of  Jonah  in  the  third  person  and  in  the 
past  tense — as  of  a  man  who  once  existed  upon 
the  earth.  It  begins  with,  *'Now  the  word  of 
the  Lord  came  to  Jonah,  the  son  of  Amittai, 
saying,  arise,  go  thou  to  Nineveh,  that  great 
city,  and  cry  against  it,  for  their  wickedness  is 
come  up  before  me." 

Who  supposes  that  a  real  prophet  thought  he 
could  escape  the  presence  of  the  Lord  by  fleeing 
to  Tarshish?  Even  the  existence  of  the  city  of 
Ninevah  w^as  spoken  of  as  in  the  past  tense  in 
this  book.  Verse  3,  of  chapter  three  says:  "Now 
Nineveh  was    an   exceeding   great   city  of  three 


244     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

days'  journey."  Would  that  piece  of  information 
have  been  necessary  if  the  book  had  been  writ- 
ten in  the  days  when  that  city  existed.  If  such 
information  was  necessary  why  does  he  say 
^'Ninevah  was  an  exceeding  great  city."  If  this 
had  been  written  during  the  days  of  the  exist- 
ence  of  that  city  why  does  not  the  writer  say 
''Now  Ninevah  is  an  exceeding  great  city." 

That  there  was  once  a  prophet  by  the  name 
of  Jonah  is  proved  by  II  Kin.  xiv.  25.  This 
prophet  existed  nearly  nine  hundred  years  before 
Christ,  and  the  book  of  Jonah  in  our  Bibles  has 
been  made  by  modern  men,  in  the  margin,  to 
bear  date  nearly  corresponding  with  that.  Yet 
if  this  book  existed  as  late  as  in  the  time  of 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  they  never  mentioned  hav- 
ing heard  of  it.  Nehemiah  did  not  collect  it  in 
his  library  w^hich  v^as  brought  together  about 
four  hundred  years  before  Christ. 

Critical  men  have  long  since  renounced  the 
idea  that  the  things  contained  in  this  book  are 
intended  to  be  literal  history.  In  that  respect 
Jonah  follows  Job.  The  book  of  Jonah  is  in  no 
sense  a  prophecy.  It  is  a  didactic  fiction;  much 
the  same  as  Jesus'  parables,  or  stories  of  the 
' 'Laborers  in  the  Vineyard,"  **The  Unjust  Stew- 
ard," ''The  Prodigal  Son,"  and  *'The  Rich  Man 
and  Lazarus,"  and  all  similar  fictions.  I  have 
heard  ministers  who  were  considered  smart, 
argue  that  the  parable  of  "The  Rich  Man  and 
Lazarus"  was  intended   as   literal   history.    The 


DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT.     245 

days  for  such  men  are  now  past.  The  mental 
cHmate  will  no  longer  sustain  them. 

Who  believes  that  Jonah  undertook  a  Mediter- 
ranean sea  voyage  and  was  thrown  overboard 
for  producing  a  storm;  that  a  whale  came  down 
there,  where  a  whale  never  was,  and  swallowed 
him.  That  he  lived  three  days  in  the  stomach  of 
a  fish,  and  actually  wrote  a  poem  while  *'in  the 
belly  of  hell?"  Who  believes  that  a  whale  came 
there  and  took  him  out  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea» 
several  thousand  miles  around  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope,  and  a  couple  of  hundred  miles  up  the  Tigris 
to  a  point  near  Nineveh  and  there  landed  him  safe- 
ty on  the  shore  where  he  must  do  that  preaching? 
Who  believes  that  that  whole  cit}-,  king  and  all 
came  out  to  listen  to  this  "wandering  Jew" — a 
man  from  a  nation  which  they  despised?  Who 
believes  that  they  all  with  one  consent  gave  up 
their  own  gods  and  repented  at  the  preaching  of 
this  man  and  that  after  this,  Yahweh  became 
their  God,  and  yet  no  other  writer  save  this 
anon^^mous  man  of  the  fifth  century  before  Christ 
ever  heard  of  it?  Who  believes  that  God  plant- 
ed a  Gourd  which  grew  up  in  a  single  night  so 
as  to  shade  the  preacher  from  the  burning  vSun? 
Who  believes— but  I'll  stop  these  questions! 

The  fact  is,  nobodj^  pretends  to  know  who 
wrote  this  didactic  narrative.  It  is  a  story  with 
a  point  which,  when  understood  as  such,  contains 
a  lesson  for  the  Jews  and  others.  Dr.  Gladden 
states  the  matter  as  follows: 

"There  is  not  one  of  the  minor  prophecies  that  has 


246     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

more  of  the  real  gospel  in  it.  To  the  people  who  first 
received  it,  how  full  of  admonition  and  reproof  it  must 
have  been!  That  great  cit3^  of  Nineveh — a  city  which 
was,  in  its  day,  as  Dr.  Geikie  says,  as  intensely  abhor- 
red by  the  Jews  as  Carthage  was  by  Rome,  or  France 
under  the  elder  Napoleon  was  by  Germany — was  a  city 
dear  to  God!  He  had  sent  his  own  prophet  to  warn 
it  of  its  danger;  and  his  prophet,  instead  of  being 
stoned  or  torn  asunder,  as  the  prophets  of  God  had 
been  by  their  own  people,  had  been  heard,  and  his 
message  heeded.  The  Ninevites  had  turned  to  God, 
and  God  had  forgiven  them!  God  was  no  less  ready 
to  forgive  and  save  Nineveh  than  Jerusalem.  What 
a  wonderful  disclosure  of  the  love  of  the  Universal 
Father!  That  a  telling  blow,  even  in  those  old  days, 
at  the  'middle  wall  of  partition'  by  which  the  Jew 
fenced  out  the  Gentile  from  his  sympathy."  — Who 
Wrote  the  Bible?    p.  141. 

Thus,  the  Jews  ought  to  have  found  a  lesson 
in  this,  which  it  is  feared  many  of  them  did  not 
take.  Let  us  not  in  trjdng  to  make  this  poem 
run  on  all  fours,  make  it  so  ridiculous  that  the 
lesson  which  it  is  designed  to  teach  is  lost. 

Those  who  wish  to  see  the  ridiculous  side  of 
the  book  of  Jonah  when  taken  literally  are  invit- 
ed to  purchase  and  read  W.  H.  Bach's  ''Big-  Bi- 
ble Stories. 

MICAH, 

the  next  prophet  which  comes  in  our  Bible,  pro- 
phesied about  B.  C,  150  "In  the  da3^s  of  Jotham, 
Ahaz  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah."  He  prophe- 
sied equall3^  against  Jerusalem,  the  capital  of 
[udah,  and  Samaria,   the  capital  of  Israel.    This 


DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT.     247 

prophet  was  cotemporary  with  the  first  Isaiah. 
Some  think  that  the  first  several  verses  of  the 
fi^urth  chapter  of  Alicah  was  copied  from  the 
first  part  of  the  second  chapter  of  Isaiah,  or 
that  those  verses  in  Isaiah  were  copied  from  Mi- 
cah,  others  suppose  that  they  were  both  copied 
from  some  older  prediction.  Let  that  be  as  it 
may,  the  Utopia  here  predicted  never  touched 
our  earth. 

Micah  accuses  the  people  of  about  the  same 
sins  they  are  accused  of  by  other  prophets;  that 
is  of  licentiousness  and  covetousness.  In  ii.  2,  he 
sa^^s: 

"And  they  covet  fields,  and  take  them  by  violence; 
and  houses  and  take  them  away;  so  they  oppress  a 
man  and  his  house,  even  a  man  and  his  heritage." 

Some  say  that  in  the  prophecy  of  Micah  is  the 
blossoming  of  the  Messianic  thought;  that  may 
be  true  but  if  it  is  so,  the  blossoms  never  culmi- 
nated in  fruit.  The  Messiah  prophesied  in  this 
book  never  came. 

Micah  seemed  as  much  opposed  as  was  Isaiah 
to  a  religion  of  forms  and  ceremonies.  In  chap- 
ter vi.  7  and  8  he  saj^s: 

"Will  the  Lord  be  pleased  with  thousands  of  rams, 
or  with  ten  thousands  of  rivers  of  oil?  Shall  I  give 
my  firstborn  for  my  transgression,  the  fruit  of  my  bo- 
dy for  tlic  sin  of  my  soul?  He  hath  showed  thee  O, 
man.  what  is  good;  and  what  doth  the  Lord  require 
of  thee  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to 
walk  humbly  with  thy  God?" 

As  a  prognosticator  of  the  future  Micah   was 


248     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

a  failure;  in  this  he  was  like  the  other  prci?hets; 
otherwise  he  is  worth  reading. 

NAHUM, 

the  next  prophet  to  pass  under  review,  is,  in  the 
margin  of  our  Bibles,  dated  about  one  hundred 
years  too  soon.  It  is  probable  that  the  author 
of  this  book  was  a  captive  in  Assyria  at  the 
time  he  wrote  it.  It  is  one  continual  prognosti- 
cation of  evil  for  Assyria,  and  its  great  city,  Nin- 
eveh. As  the  prophet  felt  keenly  his  humiliation 
he  imagined  his  God  vsras  as  mad  as  he  was,  so 
he  starts  out  saying: 

*'God  is  jealous,  and  the  Lord  revengeth;  the  Lord 
revengeth  and  is  furious;  the  Lord  will  take  vengeance 
on  his-  adversaries,  and  he  reservetli  wrath  for  his  ene- 
mies. ♦The  Lord  is  slow  to  anger,  and  great  in  power, 
and  will  not  at  all  acquit  the  wicked;  the  Lord  hath 
his  way  in  the  whirlwind  and  in  the  storm,  and  the 
clouds  are  the  dust  of  his  feet."    Nahum  i.  2,  3. 

The  prediction  in  chapter  ii.  4-6,  about  the 
chariots  raging  in  the  streets  and  jostling  one 
against  another,  has  been  interpreted  to  mean 
railroad  trains  of  the  Nineteenth  Century.  Later, 
since  the  street  cars  are  running  by  lightning 
power,  and  actually  running  in  the  streets,  this 
particular  prediction  has  been  applied  to  them; 
but  it  was  meant  to  apply  to  the  destruction 
of  Nineveh.  Nahum 's  predictions  shared  the  fate 
of  other  biblical  predictions. 

The  prophecy  of 

HABAKKUK 

was  written    about    600    years    before   Christ. 


DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT.   249 

Signs  of  the  caj^tivlty  were  all  around.  While 
the  prophet  reeogiiixes  thai:  the  punishment  up- 
on his  people  was  just,  he  thinks  that  they  were 
not  so  bad  as  were  those  who  led  them  into 
captivit3\ 

He  com  forts  his  afflicted  people  wath  the 
thought  that  though  the  Chaldeans,  "that  bit- 
ter and  hasty  nation"  is  to  be  raised  up  against 
them,  3^et  God  is  from  everlasting  to  everlast- 
ing; his  name  is  holy,  and  he  is  ''of  purer  e3^es 
than  to  behold  evil,  and  look  upon  iniquity,"  so 
tin's  captlvit^^  must  be'  of  short  duration. 

His  hope  will  cause  him  to  stand  and  watch, 
and  set  himself  upon  the  watchtower.  There 
w^as  an  appointed  time  wdiicli  w^ould  sureh 
come.  Even  though  that  appointed  time  should 
tarr}^,  he  exhorts  them  to  w^ait  for  it.  See  chap- 
ter two,  and  verses  one  to  three.  The  prophet 
comforts  his  friends  with  the  assurance  of  the 
ruin  of  his  enemies. 

zephaniah's 
prophecy  wets  written  in  the  days  of  King 
Josiah,  about  B.  C.  630.  This  prophet  believed 
that  Israel  had  sinned — that  her  sins  could  be 
endured  no  longer,  so  he  proclaimed  that  '*the 
day  of  the  Lord  is  at  hand."  The  Lord  had 
prepared  his  feasts,  and  invited  his  guests.  It 
seemed  to  him  a  day  of  destruction.    He  said: 

"The  great  day  of  the  Lord  is  near,  and  hasteth 
greatly,  even  the  voice  of  the  day  of  the  Lord;  the 
mighty  man  shall  cry  there  bittcrh'.  The  day  is  a  day 
of  wrath,    a    day    of  trouble    and    distress,  a  day    of 


250     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

wasteness  and  desolation,  a  day  of  darkness  and 
gloominess,  a  day  of  clouds  and  thick  darkness.'^ 
Zeph.  i.  14,  15. 

The  prophet  thinks  this  is  just,  on  account  of 
the  wickedness  of  Jerusalem — her  priests,  proph- 
ets and  all.     He  says  in  chapter  iii.  3,  4: 

"Her  princes  within  her  are  roaring  lions;  her  judges 
are  evening  wolves  they  gnaw  not  tlie  bones  till  the 
morrow.  Her  prophets  are  light  and  treacherous  per- 
sons; her  priests  have  i)olhjteJ  the  sanctuary,  the3^ 
have  done  violence  to  the  law." 

After  this,  he  predicts,  as  the  other  prophets 
did,  that  she  would  be  restored,  and  God  would 
yet  rejoice  over  that  clt3\ 

HAGGAI 

wrote  after  the  return  from  Babylonish  captiv- 
ity, abotit  520. B.  C.  His  words  are  a  kind  of 
exhoi -'ation  to  Zerubbabel,  the  son  of  Shealtiel, 
to  be  faithful  and  rebuild  the  temple.  There  are 
only  two  real  predictions  in  this  prophecy^ 
neither  of  which  would  give  any  one  reason  to 
thiTik  that  this  prophet  could  read  the  future. 
His  predictions  utterly  failed  to  meet  a  fulfill- 
ment. 

The  first  one  is  in  chapter  ii.  6-9,  and  prom- 
ises that  among  other  things  the  glory  of  the 
latter  house  should  be  greater  than  that  of  the 
former.  When  this  house  was  finished  the  old 
men  who  remembered  its  former  glory  and  saw 
the  inferiority  of  the  new  house  wept  like  chil- 
dren. The  second  prediction  is  that  God  would 
overthrow  the  kingdoms  and  make  Zerubbabel  a 


DANIEL  TO  END  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT.    251 

signet  for  the  nations.    See  Hag.  ii.  20-23. 
The  next  book, 

ZECHARIAH, 

contains  proof  of  carelessness  in  doing  editorial 
work.  The  true  Zechariah  was  probably  co- 
temporaneous  with  Haggai,  but  his  work  ended 
with  chapter  viii. 

Chapters  ix,  x,  xi  were  written  by  some  one 
who  lived  two  hundred  years  before  Zechariah. 
Chapters  xii-xiv  were  written  by  still  another 
hand;  no  one  can  read  the  book  without  noting 
the  changes.  The  second  part  talks  of  different 
times,  different  events  and  different  men  from  the 
first.  The  change  in  part  third  is  equally  as 
great. 

Part  first  is  wholly  mediumistic,  and  demands 
justice  all  the  way  through.  Chapter  \4i.  8,  9, 
says: 

"Tlie  word  of  the  Lord  came  nnto  Zecliariah  saying, 
thus  spcaketh  the  Lord  of  hosts,  saying,  Execute  true 
judgment,  and  show  mercy  and  compassion  every  man 
to  his  brother,  and  oppress  not  the  widow  nor  the 
fatherless  the  stranger  nor  the  poor;  and  let  none  of 
you  imagine  evil  against  his  brother  in  his  heart. "^ 

They  were  afterwards  informed  that  they  had 
been  scattered  as  the  whirlwind. 

The  second  part  promises  to  gather  them  out 
of  Assyria,  and  to  re-unite  them  as  they  never 
were  before  united. 

Part  third  threatens  terrible  things  to  those 
who  have  fought  against  Jerusalem — even  their 
flesh  shall  consume  away  while  they  stand  upon 


252     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

their  feet.  It  promised  many  things  concerning 
Jerusalem  and  its  restoration,  which  never  came 
true. 

MALACHI 

is  the  only  remaining  book  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. It  consists  of  four  short  chapters.  Its 
marginal  date  is  397  B.  C.  I  have  no  positive 
means  of  knowing  that  this  is  not  true.  I,  how- 
ever, think  it  was  written  some  years  earlier 
than  that. 

Prophetic  expositors  are  doubtful  whether  the 
book  was  written  by  a  man  by  the  name  of 
Malachi,  or  whether  the  word  was  used  to  sig- 
nify that  the  book  was  tlie  work  of  an  angel. 
The  word  Malachi  literally  means  an  angel  or 
messenger.  The  Jews  considered  Malachi  the 
last  and  least  of  the  prophets.  He  is  the  only 
prophet  who  mentions  the  law  of  Moses, 


CHAPTER   XII. 

MATTHEW   AND  MARK. 

New  Testament  not  one  Book— Epistles  Written  First- 
Mark  Probably  the  First  Gospel  Written — How  it  Origi- 
nated— Sunderland  on  the  Origin  of  the  Gospels — Gospels 
Written  in  Greek — How  Mark  got  his  Gospel — Mistakes 
in  the  Genealogy  of  Jesus — Contradictory  Stories  About 
the  Blind  Man,  or  Men— Different  Stories  About  the  Ill- 
ness of  Peter's  Mother-in-law — Different  Stories  About  the 
Superscription  on  the  Cross — Matthew  a  Jewish  Book — 
Who  Wrote  Matthew? — Mark — Perhaps  the  First  Gospel 
— How  Mark  Begins  his  Record — Chadwick  on  Origin 
of  Gospels. 

We  now  approach  the  most  important  part  of 
onr  -work;  that  is,  an  examination  of  the  New 
Testament.  People  read,  and  are  much  more 
familiar  with  that  than  with  the  Old  Testament. 
Ministers  urge  upon  their  congregations  the  es- 
pecial importance  of  studying  the  New  Testament; 
that  it  was  written  as  an  especial  message  to 
us. 

Most  people  seem  to  think  the  New  Testament 
is  one  book,  written  out  as  a  particular  code  of 
rules  for  us.  Very  few  ever  think  about  how  it 
was  made  or  how  long  it   was  in   being   made. 


254     THE   BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Few  seem  to  realize  that  the  New  Testament  was 
made  by  and  for  the  church— that  instead  of  the 
church  being  founded  on  the  New  Testament  the 
Testament  was  founded  on  the  Church. 

As  in  the  Old  Testament  the  prophecies  are 
older  than  the  Pentateuch,  so  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  genuine  Epistles  are  older  than  the 
Gospels.  Indeed  the  book  called  ^*The  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  St.  John,"  was,  it  is  now  beheved,  the 
last  book  of  the  New  Testament  written.  But 
iis  the  Gospels  are  placed  first  in  our  Bibles  1 
will  examhie  them  first. 

"The  Gospel  According  to  St.  Mark,"  was  un- 
doubtedly written  first,  but  I  will  first  examine 
Matthew.  The  first  three  of  these  gospels  are 
called  Synoptics,  because  each  one  of  them  has 
undertaken  to  give  a  sj^nopsis  of  the  life  and 
teachings  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  The  Fourth,  that 
"According  to  St.  John,"  was  written  not  as  a 
synopsis  of  the  sayings  and  doings  of  Jesus,  but, 
it  has  been  supposed,  as  an  addendum,  to  sup- 
ply some  things  which  the  others  had  by  some 
inadvertency  left  otit. 

As  I  said,  the  general  concensus  of  opinion  to- 
da3^  is  that  Mark's  Gospel,  which  is  the  shortest 
one,  was  written  first;  and  that  all  three  of  the 
Gospels  were  taken  from  older  documents,  and 
it  is  now  believed  by  many  that  these  documents 
were  not  made  until  after  the  death  of  the  most, 
if  not  all  of  the  apostles. 

While  those  who  heard  Jesus  and  talked  w4th 
him  were  alive  it  was  thought  hardly  necessary 


MATTHEW   AND  MARK. 


255 


to  have  written  documents.  Afterward  certain 
memoriabilia  of  the  events  of  Jesus'  Hfe,  and  of  his 
talk  were  supposed  to  have  been  made  out,  per- 
haps, by  Mark,  from  hearing  Peter  and  Paul 
preach,  for,  let  it  be  remembered  neither  Mark 
nor  Luke  ever  saw  Jesus.  From  these  memoria- 
bilia  was  afterward  w^ritten  **The  Gospel  Accord- 
ing to  St.  Mark.'' 

From  Mark  it  was  an  easy  slide  to  "The  Gos- 
pel according  to  St.  Matthew,"  or  Luke.  As 
Matthew  and  Luke  are  opposite  extemes,  the 
writing  of  one  v\rould  as  naturally  produce  the 
other  as  the  swinging  of  a  clock  pendulum  from 
one  side  would  cause  it  to  swing  to  the  other. 
Matthew  was  an  extreme  Jewish  partisan,  while 
Luke  was  written  from  a  Gentile  stand-point. 
Some  of  the  evidences  of  this  will  appear  when 
I  come  to  examine  these  books  separately.  As 
apropos  on  this  point  I  will  quote  Mr.  Sunder- 
land.   On  pp.  125—6,  he  says: 

'*If  Mark  is  our  oldest  Gospel,  it  throws  great  new 
light  upon  the  whole  development  of  New  Testament 
thought.  For  Mark  is  unquestionably  the  simplest 
Gospel,  the  one  that  represents  Jesus  the  most  distinct- 
ly and  simply  human,  and  enunciates  his  message  in 
the  most  easily  understood  form.  While  Matthew  be- 
gins with  a  long  and  impossible  genealogical  table,  and 
a  whole  cycle  of  miraculous  birth  stories  filled  with 
supernatural  marvels;  and  while  John  begins  its  story 
in  heaven  by  presenting  the  eternal  word  as  becoming 
incarnate  and  descending  to  earth,  Mark  begins  with 
the  simple  and  plain  words,  'The  beginning  of  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.'      Mark  also  omits  those  stor- 


256      THE   BIBLB  AND  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

ies  of  the  reappearance  of  Jesus  after  his  resurrection 
which  have  most  the  appearance  of  legend.  So,  too, 
Mark's  Gospel  shows  a  steady  growth  and  progress 
in  Jesus'  mental  and  spiritual  history.  "While  Matthew 
and  Luke  represent  the  idea  of  his  Messiahship  as 
clear  in  his  mind  from  the  beginning,  Mark  gives  the 
impression  that  it  grows  in  his  thought  by  degrees, 
the  first  clear  recognition  of  it  being  given  at  Cesarea 
Philhppi,  after  his  ministry  was  far  advanced. 

"It  is  this  greater  simplicity  of  Mark's  Gospel,  its 
greater  naturalness  in  portfaj'ing  Jesus,  its  compara- 
tive freedom  from  legendary  traces,  from  marks  of 
elaboration,  and  from  expressions  and  allusions  of 
various  kinds  betrajnng  long  intervals  of  time  and 
later  dates,  that  is  causing  the  scholars  of  the  world 
more  and  more  to  accept  the  view  that  this  Gospel  is 
the  oldest." 

Little  need  be  added  to  the  statement  here 
made.  The  great  point  in  the  Higher  Criticism 
is  to  show  that  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
are  each  a  growth,  and  that  they  are  not  ver- 
bally inspired,  nor  yet  the  work  of  plenarily  in- 
spired men.  If  the  men  who  wrote  these  three 
synoptics  were  plenarily  inspired,  the  wording  of 
these  books  might  differ  somewhat,  the  thoughts 
could  not  differ.  If  they  were  verbally  inspired 
as  most  good  Christians  have  thought,  then 
these  books  would  be  exactly  alike — word  for 
word;  but  if  they  trusted  to  memory  or  to  hear- 
say reports  they  might  be  expected  to  differ  in 
many  places.  That  they  do  differ  in  many 
places  I  will  now  show. 

I  will  premise  by  saying  that  the  Gospels  were 


MATTHEW   AND   MARK.  257 

written  iii  Greek,  and  are  therefore  not  Jesus' 
words,  but  a  more  or  less  correct  translation  of 
them.  It  is  not  known  that  Jesus  ever  spoke 
one  word  of  Greek.  The  Hebrew  language  had 
died,  or  been  so  changed  in  Jesus'  day  that  it 
could  no  longer  have  been  recognized  as  Hebrew; 
and  the  Greek  had  not  j^et  come  into  general 
use  in  Palestine.  Jesus  spoke  the  Aramaic  lan- 
guage. His  words  and  thoughts  were  handed 
out  from  what  memor^^  could  recall  of  Peter's 
sermons.  Be  it  remembered  that  Paul  never  saw- 
Jesus  until  he  met  him  on  the  way  to  Damas- 
cus, some  3^ears  after  he  had  been  crucrfied. 
Thus  Jesus'  sayings  and  doings  were  given  by 
Peter  from  memory.  It  was  then  translated  in- 
to Greek,  after  which  it  was  copied  hundreds  of 
times,  perhaps  before  -  the  copy  was  made  from 
which  our  translation  comes;  it  was  then  trans- 
lated, some  of  it  from  the  Greek,  some  from  the 
Latin  Vulgate  into  our  langniage.  Thus  it  is  seen 
that  even  if  Jesus  spoke  under  a  full  head  of  in- 
spiration we  are  removed  a  long  way  from  what 
he  really  said. 

In  one  or  two  instances  the  writer  puts  in 
what  Jesus  really  said,  or  rather  v^hat  he  sup- 
poses he  said,  and  then  translates  it  into  Greek; 
from  which  language  it  is  brought  into  English. 
In  Mark  vii.  34,  when  Jesus  healed  the  deaf 
man,  the  writer  says,  he  touched  his  ears  and 
said  unto  him,  ^^Ephphatha,  that  is,  be  opened." 

The  same  writer  says  that  in  raising  the  sup- 
posed to  be  dead  maid,  ''he  took  her  by  the  hand 


258     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

and  said  unto  her  ^Talitha  Cumi,'  which  is,  be- 
ing interpreted,  (translated)  damsel,  I  say  unto 
thee  arise."    Mark  v.  41. 

To  prove  that  I  am  not  guessing  I  will  con- 
clude on  this  point  with  a  quotation  irom  Dr. 
Gladden.  In  his  ''Who  Wrote  the  Bible,"  p.  248, 
he  says: 

"When  we  speak  therefore  of  the  Greek  as  the  origi- 
nal language  of  the  Gospels,  we  do  not  speak  with 
entire  accuracy.  The  Greek  does  not  give  us  our  Lord's 
words.  *  *  *  No  man  on  earth  knows,  or  ever  will 
know  what  were  the  precise  words  that  our  Lord 
used  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  his  conversation 
with  the  woman  at  the  well,  in  his  last  discourse  with 
his  disciples.  His  very  words  we  have  not.  and  this 
fact  itself  is  the  most  convincing  disproof  of  the  dogma 
of  verbal  inspiration." 

Now  that  I  have  cleared  the  ground,  I  will 
begin  the  argument  to  prove  that  these  evange- 
lists differed  on  almost  every  point. 

The  writer  of  the  book  of  Matthew  feeling  that 
his  gospel  must  be  a  Jewish  document,  puts  in 
the  genealogy  of  Jesus;  but  as  Jesus  had  come  only 
to  "the  lost  sheep  of  the  House  of  Israel"  and  no 
body  else  could  by  any  possibility  have  any  in- 
terest in  the  affair,  he  traces  his  genealogy  back 
only  to  Abraham.  "The  Gospel  according  to 
St.  Mark"  very  properly  omits  the  genealogy  of 
Jesus,  while  that  ' 'According  to  St.  Luke"  not 
to  be  beaten  by  Matthew,  treats  his  readers  to 
a  genealogy  of  Jesus,  but  as  Jesus  came  for  the 
whole  world  he  traces  him  back   to   Adam,    the 


MATTHEW  AND  MARK.  259 

supposed  father  of  the  whole  world.  Matthew 
makes  twentj^-eight  generations  from  Abraham 
to  David;  Luke  gives  us  thirtj^-eight.  More  than 
this,  the  names  in  Matthew  and  Luke  do  not 
agree;  worse  than  all,  neither  of  them  give  the 
genealogj^  of  Jesus  at  all.  They  each  give  the 
genealogy  of  Joseph,  who,  _as  is  generally  sup- 
posed, is  in  no  way  connected  with  Jesus.  The 
orthodox  claim  is,  that  Jesus  was  born  without 
an  earthh^  father. 

Again,  Matthew  makes  Jacob  the  father  of 
Joseph,  the  husband  of  Mary.  Matt.  i.  16. 
Luke  saj^s  Heli  was  the  father  of  Joseph.  Luke 
iii.  23.  The  church  has  tried  in  vain  for  hun- 
dreds of  years  to  explain  these  difficulties  but 
they  have  proved  to  be  a  "Banquo's  ghost;" 
they  will  not  ''down,"  even  at  the  bidding  of 
the  wisest  and  most  powerful  theologians. 

It  may  be  well  for  me  to  here  present  a  few 
more  cases  of  contradiction  between  Matthew 
and  Luke.  Take  the  circumstances  of  the  open- 
ing of  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man,  or  blind  men, 
as  the  case  may  be,  near  Jericho.  You  will  find 
it  in  Matt.  ix.  27-30,  Mark  viii.  22-25,  and  Luke 
xviii.  35-43.  Matthew  and  Mark  happen  to 
agree  in  one  point  in  this  case,  and  that  is,  that 
the  healing  took  place  as  they  were  departing 
from  the  city.  Luke  sa3's  it  occurred  before  he 
entered  the  city.  On  the  other  hand  ^Vlark  and 
Luke  say  there  was  one  man  who  had  his  ca'cs 
opened,  while  Matthew  sa3^s  there  were  two.  I 
refer  to  this  as  a  proof  of  the  absolute  fallibility 


260     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

of  these  writers.  The  main  facts  of  these  vary* 
ing  stories  may  have  contained  important 
threads  of  truth,  but  when  each  redactor  comes 
to  fix  the  story  up  in  detail,  as  it  had  come  to 
him— well,  they  were  near  enough  alike  so  they 
can  be  seen  to  be  attempts  to  tell  the  same 
thing,  that  is  all. 

Matthew  and  Mark  each  tell  us  that  the  heal- 
ing of  Peter's  wife's  mother  took  place  after  the 
calling  of  Simon  and  Andrew,  while  Luke  in- 
forms us  that  Peter's  wife's  mother  was  healed 
first.  See  Matt.  iv.  19,  viii.  14,  Mark  i.  17-32; 
Luke  iv.  38,  39. 

In  Matthew  ii.  23,  is  an  attempt  to  quote 
from  the  prophecies,  a  thing  to  which  Luke,  tak- 
ing little  interest,  does  not  aspire.  Matthew 
quotes,  ^'Behold,  he  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene.'* 
The  fact  is,  there  is  no  such  prophec3^  In  Jud- 
ges xiii.  5,  is  a  remark  made  to  Mrs.  Manoah, 
that  her  son,  Samson,  should  be  a  Nazarite  unto 
God  from  his  birth.  All  these  things  prove  that 
the  writers  and  redactors  of  the  New  Testament,, 
like  mortals  today,  are  sadly  fallible. 

Matt,  xxvii.  makes  a  quotation  from  Jeremiah 
the  prophet.  In  Jeremiah,  or  Jeremy-,  as  the 
Greek  made  him  say,  there  are  no  such  words 
as  the  man  thinks  he  quotes.  They  will  be  foiuid 
in  Zechariah  xi.  13.  All  this  proves  that  the 
writer  of  the  book  of  Matthew,  whoever  he  may 
have  Ijeen,  was  sadly  deficient  in  reading  or  in 
memory. 

Another  example  of  the  sad  deficiency  and  fal- 


MATTHEW   AND   MARK.  261 

libility  of  biblical  writers  is  found  in  the  records 
of  the  supposed  inscription  put  up  over  the  head 
of  Jesus,  on  the  cross.  Each  one  of  the  four 
Evangelists  tells  of  the  matter:  it  is  told  in  such 
a  way  as  to  leave  little  doubt  but  that  a  super- 
scription -was  placed  there,  and  that  the  mat- 
ter was  told  by  fallible  men.  Each  of  the  four 
winters  supposes  that  he  is  quoting  the  exact 
words  of  the  superscription;  yet  each  one  has  it 
different  from  either  of  the  others.  All  these  are 
proofs  that  the  Evangelical  writers  depended  al- 
most wholly  upon  hearsay  evidence,  or  memory, 
or  both;  and  that  their  memories  were  nearly  as 
treacherous  as  the    average    memory    of  today. 

Matthew  records  the  matter  as  follows:  *'This 
is  Jesus,  the  king  of  the  Jews."  Matt,  xxvii.  36. 

Mark  sa3^s:  *'And  the  superscription  of  this 
action  was  written  over,  The  King  of  the 
Jews."  Mark  xv.  26.  In  the  language  of  Luke 
it  is:  "And  a  superscription  also  was  written 
over  liini  in  letters  of  Greek  and  Latin  and  He- 
brew, this  is  the  King  of  the  Jews."  John  re- 
cords the  matter  still  differently:  "And  Pilate 
wrote  a  title,  and  put  it  on  the  cross.  And  the 
writing  was,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  King  of  the 
Jews,"    Jno.  xix.  19. 

I  have  indicated  that  the  writer  of  Matthew 
wrote  from  a  Jewish  standpoint.  With  the  ex- 
ceptions of  the  book  of  James,  which  was  writ- 
ten by  a  Jew  to  the  "Twelve  Tribes  of  Israel," 
and  the  Apocalypse,  the  book  of  Matthew  is  the 
most  intensely  Jewish    book    of  the  New  Testa- 


262     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

ment.  The  writer  of  Luke  is  more  of  a  univers- 
alist— I  mean  a  universalis  t  in  the  sense  that  he 
writes  for  all.  The  book  of  John  is  as  intensely 
anti-Jewish  as  the  book  of  Matthew  is  Jewish. 
These  things  will  appear  as  we  proceed  to  their 
examination. 

Some  of  the  more  particular  Jewish  features 
of  the  book  of  Matthew  are  in  the  following: 

1.  I  have  said  that  Matthew  traces  the 
genealogy  of  Joseph,  the  reputed  father  of  Jesus, 
back  to  Abraham,  no  farther. 

2.  This  book  represents  Jesus  as  saying  to 
his  disciples,  at  the  time  he  sent  them  out  to 
preach:  *'Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye 
not,  but  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
house  of  Israel."    Matt.  x.  5-6. 

3.  In  Matt.  xv.  4,  the  writer  represents  Jesus 
as  saying:  *'I  am  not  sent  but  to  the  lost  sheep 
of  the  House  of  Israel." 

4.  In  Matt.  xxiv.  20,  Jesus  is  represented  as 
having  a  superstitious  regard  for  the  Sabbath, 
such  as  is  manifested  in  several  places  in  the 
Apocryphal  Old  Testament.  He  exhorts  his  dis- 
ciples to  pray,  in  some  imaginary  trouble,  of 
which  he  speaks,  that  their  flight  should  not  be 
in  the  winter,  nor  on  the  Sabbath  day." 

5.  After  Jesus  told  the  Gentile  woman 
that  he  was  not  sent  **but  to  the  lost  sheep  of 
the  House  of  Israel,"  he  told  her,  **It  is  not  meet 
to  take  the  children's  bread  and  give  it  to  dogs." 
That  is,^  it  is  not  meet  to  take  that   which  was 


MATTHEW  AND  MARK.  263 

originally  intended  alone  for  the  Jews  and  give 
it  to  the  Gentiles. 

The  theory  of  all  this  is,  that  the  man  who 
wrote  "The  Gospel  According  to  St  Matthew," 
was  merely  a  compiler — perhaps  a  Jew,  who 
could  not  get  over  the  idea  that  the  Jews 
were  selected  as  the  especial  favorites  of  heaven. 
His  compilations  were  selected  mostly  from  one 
or  two  Jewish  documents  one  of  which  was  more 
Jewish  than  the  other;  there  are  jDlaces  in  the 
book  not  so  intensely  Jewish  as  others. 

As  another  proof  of  the  Judaism  of  this  book 
I  might  refer  to  its  numerous  efforts  to  quote 
from  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  Every 
quotation  is  wrong,  or  misinterpreted;  that  was 
a  common  custom.  It  is  enough  to  say  the 
book  of  Matthew  was  not  so  inspired  as  to 
save  it  from  these  mistakes. 

Did  Maj:thew  write  the  book?  Such  a  suppo- 
sition is  absolutely  out  of  the  question.  It  was 
taken  from  prior  documents.  Just  when  it  was 
written  no  one  knows.  It  was  probably  not, 
however,  until  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second 
centurj'  A.  D.  It  was  never  ascribed  to  Matthew 
until  it  was  done  by  the  Bishop  of  Heriapolis, 
somewhere  between  170  and  180.  This,  by  the 
way,  is  the  first  undisputed  evidence  of  the  ex- 
istence of  such  a  book.  If  any  of  it  existed  be- 
fore this  time  it  was  only  in  fragments.  These 
fragments  knew  nothing  of  the  miracles  con- 
nected with  the  birth  and  death  of  Jesus. 

Papias  is  represented  as  saying  about  the  mid- 


264     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

die  of  the  second  centtiry,  "Matthew  composed 
oracles  in  the  Hebrew  dialect."  Our  book  of 
Matthew  bears  no  evidence  of  ever  having  heard 
of  the  Hebrew.  There  were,  perhaps,  before 
Papias'  day,  two  or  three  Hebrew  documents 
out  of  which  our  book  of  Matthew  could  have 
grown.  Some  of  these  documents  were  more 
intensely  Hebrew  than  others. 

BOOK    OF  MARK. 

No  one  can  tell  just  when  either  of  the  four 
gospels  were  written;  as  I  have  already  said, 
the  concensus  of  critical  opinion  is  that  the  book 
of  Mark  was  written  before  either  of  the  other 
Gospels.  It  is  generally  supposed  that  ''The 
Gospel,  according  to  St.  Mark,"  was  taken  from 
some  older  documents.  Some  think  it  was  taken 
from  something  prepared  by  some  one  who  heard 
Mark  preach. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  Mark  never  saw 
Jesus;  he  traveled  with  both  Peter  and  Paul, 
and  got  from  them  the  most  if  not  all  of  his 
knowledge  concerning  Jesus.  Paul  never  saw 
Jesus  until  he  saw  him  as  a  spirit,  after  his 
body  had  been  dead  several  years. 

Mark's  supposed  narrative  of  the  sayings  and 
doings  of  Jesus  is  the  shortest,  and  undoubtedly 
the  most  truthful  of  all.  It  is  said  that  in  all 
the  sixteen  chapters  of  Mark  there  are  only 
twenty-four  verses  which  have  not  been  copied, 
in  substance  at  least,  by  Matthew  or  Luke,  or 
both  of  them.  The  other  writers  either  took 
the  book  of  Mark  or  the  documents  from  which 


MATTHEW  AND  MARK,  265 

Mark  gathered  the   materials   for  his  narrative, 
as  a  kind  of  digest  on  which  to  enlarge. 

While  everything  that  Is  in  Mark  is  in  one  or 
the  other  of  the  Sj^noptlc  Gospels  there  are 
many  things  in  the  other  books  not  found  in 
Mark.  Mark  does  not  pretend  to  give  the  genea- 
logy of  Jesus;  Matthew  and  Luke  both  do.  Mat- 
thew, true  to  his  Ebionitish  predilections,  traces 
Jesus  only  as  far  back  as  Abraham;  Luke's  Uni- 
versallsm  led  him  to  trace  Jesus  back  to  Adam. 
The  contradictions  between  Matthew  and  Luke 
on  the  matter  prove  that  both  would  have 
manifested  more  wisdom  if  they  had  followed 
Mark's  example  and  left  all  that  out;  especially 
as  they  only  give  the  genealogy  of  Joseph,  who, 
it  is  supposed,  w^as  not  the  father  of  Jesus  at 
all.    He  was  at  most  only  a  step-father. 

The  book  of  Mark,  as  we  have  it,  begins  its 
record  by  sa3'ing,  *'The  beginning  of  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God." 
"The  Son  of  God"  is  wanting  in  older 
manuscripts  than  those  from  which  King 
James'  translation  was  made.  It  is  not  in  the 
manuscripts  found  by  Dr.  Tischendorf  in  the 
Convent  of  St.  Catherines,  on  Mount  Sinai. 
That  manuscript  is  acknowledged  to  be  older 
than  that  from  which  our  Bibles  were  made. 
The  term,  ''Son  of  God,"  was  evidently  inserted 
by  some  one  after  the  idea  was  bom  of  making 
a  God  of  the  son  of  Mary. 

While  on  this  subject  I  may  add  that  it  is 
conceded  that   the   book  of   Mark   proper,  ends 


266     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

with  verse  sixteen  of  chapter  sixteen.  All  after 
that  has  been  interpolated  by  a  more  modern 
writer. 

We  shall  understand  the  Gospels  better  when 
v^e  learn  that  they  were  not  written  by  men  on 
the  spot,  that  stenographic  reporters  were  not 
following  Jesus  from  place  to  place,  as  reporters 
follow  presidential  candidates  to  catch  their 
every  word.  It  has  not  been  claimed  by  any- 
body that  a  single  word  of  our  Gospels  was 
written  within  a  quarter  of  a,  century  of  the 
time  that  Jesus  lived. 

To  give  the  reader  a  general  idea  of  the  time 
w^hen  the  book  of  Mark  was  written  I  will 
once  more  quote  from  Mr.  Chadwick.  On  pages 
277,  278  of  his  '^Bible  of  Today,"  he  says: 

"Matthew  Arnold,  who  accepts  a  fragment  of  Claud- 
ius ApoUinaris  as  evidence  of  the  existence  and  exclusive 
use  of  our  four  Gospels  as  canonical  in  173  A.  D.  de- 
clares 'But  he  is  really  our  last  witness.  Ascending  to 
the  times  before  him,  we  find  mention  of  the  gospels, 
or  memoriabilia  and  written  accounts  of  Jesus  by  his 
apostles  and  followers;  we  find  incidents  from  the  life 
of  Jesus;  sayings  of  Jesus  quoted.  But  w^e  look  in  vain 
in  Justin  Martyr  (150)  or  Polycarp  (died  166)  or 
Ignatius,  (died  105)  or  Clement  of  Rome,  (died  101) 
either  for  an  express  recognition  of  the  four  Canonical 
Gospels,  or  for  a  distinct  mention  of  any  of  them.  No 
doubt  the  mention  of  an  Evangelist's  name  is  unim- 
portant, if  his  narrative  is  evidently  quoted,  and  if 
we  recognize  without  hestitation  this  form  of  ex- 
pression.' But  till  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  cen- 
tury none  of  our  four  Gospels  are  evidently  quoted." 


MATTHEW  AND  MARK.  267 

Again,  speaking  of  the  Gospels,  he  says: 
"Certain  of  their  existence  we  cannot  be  before  Apol- 
linaris,  at  the  eadicst  (173  A.  D.)  He  is  at  any  rate 
the  first  to  name  Mark  as  the  author  of  our  second 
Gospel.  This  late  opinion  is  not  supported  by  any 
evidence.  On  the  contrary  the  internal  evidence  is  con- 
clusive of  an  unknown  author  subsequent  to  both 
Matthew  and  Luke.  He  must  have  written  the  Gospel 
about  120,  and  probably  at  Rome;  the  Latinisms  of 
his  style,  and  the  apparent  motive  of  his  work,  strong- 
ly suggesting  that  he  was  a  Jewish  citizen  of  the 
Eternal  City." 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  ST  LUKE. 

Many  Gospels  Written  Before  Luke — Luke  Not  an  Eye-wit- 
ness— Tells  Only  What  he  Believes — Growth  From  For- 
mer Gospels — How  Stories  Grow— The  Case  of  St.  Xavier 
— Luke  Begins  Farther  Back  than  Either  Mark  or  Mat- 
thew— Luke  and  Matthew  Utterly  Irreconcilable — Some 
of  the  Differences  Stated— The  Destruction  of  Jerusalem — 
Many  Other  Stories  Found  in  Luke  not  in  Other  Gospels 
— Some  of  Luke's  Miracles  not  Elsewhere  Stated — Who 
Wept,  Jesus  or  the  Women? — Did  Both  Thieves  Rail  on 
Jesus,  or  did  one  Pray? — End  of  Synoptics. 

The  next  and  last  one  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
as  we  have  them,  is  the  * 'Gospel  according  to 
Saint  Luke."  This  book  begins  with  the  state- 
ment that  there  were  many  gospels  written  be- 
fore his;  and  that  he  was  writing,  not  as  an  eye- 
witness, but  as  one  who  based  what  he  had  to 
say,  on  the  testimony  of  eye-witnesses.  His 
words  read  as  follows: 

"For  as  much  as  many  have  taken  in  hand  to  set 
forth  in  order  a  declaration  of  those  things  which  are 
most  surely  JDelieved  among  us,  even  as  they  declared 
them  unto  us,  which  from  the  beginning  were  eye-wit- 
nesses and  ministers  of  the  word;  it  seemed  good  to 
me  also  having  had  perfect  understanding  of  all  things 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  ST.   LUKE.      269 

from  the  very  first,  to  write  unto  thee  in  order,  most 
excellent  Theophilus,  that  thou  mightest  know  the 
certainty  of  those  things  wherein  thou  hast  been  in- 
structed." 

This  text  contains  a  vast  amount  of  informa- 
tion on  the  origin  of  the  message  this  writer  has 
for  his  friend,  the  ''most  excellent  Theophilus." 

1.  The  information  to  be  imparted  does  not 
appear  to  be  for  the  public,  but  for  his  friend 
Theophilus. 

2.  The  writer  does  not  pretend  to  tell  any- 
thing new.  Many  had  before  him  undertaken  to 
set  forth  in  order,  those  things  "most  surely  be- 
lieved among  us."  The  writer  did  not  attempt 
to  tell  what  he  knew;  but  what  "is  believed  am- 
ong us." 

3.  The  writer  is  not  an  eye-witness,  he  is  only 
repeating  "what  many  have  undertaken  to  set 
forth."  He  is  telling  the  matter  as  he  under- 
stands it  to  have  been  told  by  those  who,  "from 
the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers 
of  the  word."  He  is  redacting  and  relating  the 
average  pulpit  stories  of  his  time. 

4.  The  translation  is  not  quite  as  clear  as  I 
would  like.  Benjamin  Wilson,  in  his  "Emphatic 
Diaglott,"  translates  it  as  follows: 

"Even  as  those  who  were  from  the  beginning  eyc- 
witnesses  and  dispensers  of  the  word,  delivered  them 
to  us." 

5.  This  writer  does  not  profess  to  have  seen, 
but  to  have  had  "perfect  understanding,"  or  as 
the  Greek  reads  having  had  "accurate  informa- 
tion."    For  this  reason  he  determined  to  write  a 


270     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

diegcsis,  or  an  orderly  statement  of  those  things 
of  which  his  friend  had  heard.  Surely  no. state- 
ment could  be  plainer.  The  same  thing  which 
Luke  relates  is  true  of  the  other  S^'noptic  Gos- 
pels. 

The  Gospel  According  to  St.  Luke  is  much 
longer  tiian  that  of  Mark,  and  richer  in  its  ex- 
pres.-ioris  than  that  of  Matthew.  M?i.tthew  and 
Mark  were  surely  both  among  the  "many  Avho 
had  taken  in  hand  to  set  forth  in  order  a  declar- 
ation of  those  things  which  are  most  assuredly 
believed  among  us."  The  writer  evidently  utili- 
zes much  that  these  men  had  said,  and  gathei^ed 
much,  as  I  shall  show,  from  other  sources. 

There  is  no  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  book 
of  Luke  prior  to  A.  D.  180.  This  writer,  whoever 
he  may  be,  surely  had  plenty  of  time  to  allow 
the  narratives  of  Mark  and  Matthew  to  grow, 
as  well  as  to  get  many  additional  narratives; 
these  opportunities  he  does  not  fail  to   improve. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  tendency  of  stories  to 
grow  in  bulk  and  in  their  powers  of  astonisk- 
ment  as  the  years  go  by,  I  might  refer  to  the 
case  of  St.  Xavier.  The  Catholic  Church,  "onte 
upon  a  time,"  had  a  priest,  no  doubt  a  good 
sort  of  man  v^hose  church  name  was  Xavier. 
His  faithfulness  and  earnestness  in  ehurch  werk 
caused  his  church  to  send  him  to  China  as  a 
missionary.  He  did  so  well  that  after  his  death 
the  church  made  a  saint  of  him. 

When  this  priest  got  to  be  an  old  man  he 
wrote  a  sort  of  autobiography    of  himself,    and 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  ST.  LUKE.     271 

especially  of  his  work  in  China.  Unfortunately 
for  later  biographers  of  this  saint,  this  book  is 
still  in  existence.  The  book  contains  many  won- 
derful, and  perhaps,  true  psychic  narratives;  and 
tells  of  many  of  the  difficulties  he  had  in  his  mis- 
sionary work  among  the  Chinese.  It  relates  no 
miracles.  It  tells  of  a  terrible  storm  at  sea,  in 
which,  as  a  last  resort  he  threw  his  crucifix  into 
the  sea  to  try  its  effect  in  calming  the  winds  and 
smoothing  the  waters.  The  effect  was  magical; 
in  a  few  moments  the  wind  quieted  down  to  the 
most  gentle  zephyr;  the  mountainous  waves  be- 
came gentle  cradles  in  which  they  were  rocked 
while  the  breezes  fanned  the  tired  sailors  into  a 
peaceful  slumber.  They  soon  found  themselves 
gently  wafted  into  port.  This  the  good  priest 
believed  was  in  answer  to  his  prayer,  and  an 
evidence  of  the  power  of  the  crucifix.  To  the 
priest's  great  astonishment,  a  few  days  after  he 
landed  the  winds  and  waves  brought  to  him  his 
crucifix.  He  naturall3r  enough  believed  that  there 
was  a  "Divine  Providence"  in  it,  and  so  record- 
ed the  matter. 

After  the  death  of  the  good  father  his  biogra- 
pher re-wrote  the  story  with  many  entirely  orig- 
inal embelishments.  St.  Xavier  had  wrought  a 
miracle;  he  threw  his  crucifix  into  the  sea,  com- 
manding the  winds  and  the  waves  and  thej' 
oi3eved  him,— more  than  that,  the  crucifix  float- 
ed along  by  the  ship— in  fact  it  acted  as  a  kind 
ot  pilot  and  conducted  it  to  shore;  it  kept  it  in 
calm  and  undisturbed   waters    all    its    oilierwi''' 


272      THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIOHER   CRITICISM. 

perilous  jonrnej.  The  priest  after  lie  landed  ob- 
tained and  ns€vi  his  poweHul  crucifix. 

A  century  later  another  biographer  appeared. 
He  told  of  a  fish  which  caught  the  crucifix  as 
soon  as  it  touched  the  water  and  carrying  it  to 
the  shore,  had  it  ready  to  hand  to  the  saint  as 
soon  as  he  arrived. 

This  priest  tells  of  his  toils  and  troubles  in 
trying  to  learn  the  Chinese  language;  and  of  the 
Chinese  laughing  at  his  efforts  to  talk  to  them 
in  their  own  language  on  a  certain  occasion  when 
his  interpreter  failed  to  put  in  an  appearance. 
The  later  historians  represented  him  as  having  no 
difiiculty  \a  hatcver;  he  everywhere  repeated  the 
Pentecostal  phenomenon  of  addressing  every  man 
in  the  language  wherein  he  was  born. 

If  I  am  rightly  informed  there  were  four  lives 
of  this  man  published;  each  successive  one  en- 
larging on  the  stories  of  all  its  predecessors. 
You  will  get  a  very  good  idea  of  these  docu- 
ments and  the  growth  of  their  stories^  in  Andrew 
D.  White's  "Conflict  of  Science  and  Theology." 

In  a  similar  way  the  synoptic  stories  of  the 
life  of  Jesus,  large  at  first,  have  each  outgrown  its 
immediate  predecessor.  This  will  further  appear 
in  the  examination  of  this  Gospel. 

Luke  begins  further  back  than  Matthew,  and 
much  further  back  than  Mark.  Mark  begins 
with  the  time  Jesus  began  to  preach;  Matthew, 
after  giving  his  genealogy,  begins  with  his  birth; 
and  Luke  with  the  story  of  the  vision  of  Zacha- 
rias,  the   father    of  John   the    Baptist.    Then  he 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO   ST.   LUKE.      273 

gives   information   concerning   the   childhood  of 
both  John  and  Jesus. 

The  stories  told  by  Matthew  and  Luke  have 
never  been  reconciled  or  harmonized  v^ith  each 
other.  This  is  not  from  want  of  effort,  for-  bar- 
rels of  ink  have  flown  from  pen  points  with  the 
determination  of  blotting  out  the  differences  in 
these  stories.  The  only  effect  has  been  to  seem- 
ingly widen  the  gap  between  the  two. 

Matthew  regards  Bethlehem  as  the  place  of 
Joseph's  abode;  with  Luke  Nazareth  was  the 
place  of  his  residence.  Jesus'  birth  with  Luke 
was  wholly  an  accident  which  happened  when 
his  parents  went  to  Bethlehem  to  pay  their  tax. 

As  before  intimated,  Matthew  and  Luke  both 
undertake  to  trace  the  genealogy  of  Jesus;  Mat- 
the^w  from  Abraham  and  Luke  from  Adam. 
These  genealogies  do  not  come  out  within  ten 
generations  of  each  other.  Even  if  they  did 
agree,  tliey  each  give  tlie  genealogy  of  Joseph 
and  not  that  of  Jesus. 

The  fact  is,  the  idea  of  Joseph  not  being  the 
father  of  Jesus  was  an  after  thought.  It  was  not 
bom  until  after  the  documents  were  written 
from  which  these  gentlemen  gathered  the  facts 
and  stories  on  which  to  base  their>narratives. 
Those  who  afterwards  decided  that  Jesus  was 
not  Joseph's  son  forgot  to-  adjust  these  genea-: 
logics  to  fit  the  changed  condition  of  affairs. 

There  is  a  wide  difference  between  Matthew 
and  Luke  in  their  report  of  Jesus'  discourse  on 
the  destruction    of  Jerusalem    and    its  etceteras. 


274     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER'  CRITICISM. 

The  matter  as  told  in  Matthew  xxiv  was  a  pri- 
vate conversation  between  Jesus  and  his  dis- 
ciples one  evening  when  they  were  on  the  Mount 
of  Olives,  after  having  spent  the  day  in  the  tem- 
ple. See  verses  1-4.  Luke  represents  that  this 
same  discourse  was  delivered  as  a  public  dis- 
course in  the  temple.  It  began  when  he  saw  a 
w^idow  cast  two  mites — all  she  had — into  the 
treasury.  Luke  xxi.  1-4.  At  its  conclusion  Luke 
says: 

"And  in  the  daytime  he  was  teaching  in  the  temple; 
and  at  night  he  went  out  and  abode  in  the  Mount 
that  is  called  the  Mount  of  Olives.  And  all  the  peo- 
ple came  early  in  the  morning  to  the  temple  for  to 
hear  him."    Verses  37,  38. 

The  book  of  Luke  contains  much  matter  not 
found  in  either  of  the  other  three  Gospels,  which 
is  a  proof  that  the  other  writers  were  sadly  de- 
ficient, or  that  the  stories  had  grown  since  the 
others  wrote,  as  those  concerning  the  priest 
Xavier  grev^  from  generation  to  generation. 

Among  the  things  found  alone  in  Luke,  are 
the  parables  of  the  lost  piece  of  silver.  Luke 
XV.  8-11.  The  Prodigal  Son  xvi.  1-12.  The  Rich 
Man  arid  Lazarus,  xvi.  19-31.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  the  Good  Samaritan.  Luke  x.  30-35. 
Also  of  the  publican  and  the  pharisee  who  went 
into    the  temple  to  pray,      xviii.  10-14. 

By  the  way,  the  Good  Samaritan  was  not  a 
Jew.  He  was  of  a  people  who  had  no  dealings 
with  the  Jews.  See  Jno.  iv.  9.  This  was  writ- 
ten to  prove  the  superiority  of  some  of  the  Gen- 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  ST.   LUKE.     275 

tiles  over  the  Jews;  and  that  the  Gentiles,  in- 
stead of  being  **dogs,"  as  Matthew  accuses 
Jesus  of  saying,  were  "neighbors."  Jesus  h^d 
said,  ''Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself." 
The  question  was  asked,  **who  is  my  neighbor?" 
This  story  of  the  Samaritan  shows  the  Gentile 
to  be  a  neighbor— not  a  dog.  It  will  be  re- 
membered that  the  priest  passed  this  sufferer 
by,  as  did  the  Levite;  the  Samaritan  was  the 
true  neighbor. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  pharisee  and  the 
publican.  The  poor  publican's  prayer  was  heard 
rather  than  that  of  the  pharisee.  Thus  Luke 
everywhere  stands  up  for  the  Gentiles  as  against 
the  Jews.  Luke  contrasts  the  Jewish  and  Gen- 
tile dispensations  as  follows:  **The  law  and  the 
prophets  were  until  John,  since  that  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  preached  and  e\ery  man  pressetb 
into  it.''    Luke  xvi.  16. 

Luke  manages  to  get  in  a  few  miracles  of 
which  Mark  or  Matthew  either  had  net  heard, 
or  they  thought  them  fabulous,  and  not  worthy 
of  recording.  The  Resurreetion  of  the  Son  of 
the  Widow  of  Nain  is  a  remarkable  case  in 
point. 

Matthew  and  Mark  both  record  the  fact  that 
Jesus  wept  over  Jerusalem;  while  Luke  makes  a 
record  which  leaves  us  to  infer  that  at  least 
some  of  the  women  of  Jerusalem  wept  over  him. 
He  represents  Jesus  as  saying,  "Daughters  of 
Jerusalem,  weep  not  for  me,  but  weep  for  your- 
selves   and   for   your   children."    Luke  xxiii.  28. 


276     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

This  is  certainly  a  beautiful  sajnng;  and  Luke 
did  well  to  embellish  his  book  with  it.  If  Jesus 
did  use  these  words  it  was  an  oversight  in 
the  other  evangelists  to  forget  to  put  them  into 
their  narratives.  The  same  might  be  said  of 
Jesus'  last  words;  * 'Father,  into  thy  hands  I 
commend  my  spirit."  Luke  xxiii.  46.  Either 
the  vnriter  of  this  book  invented  these  words,  or 
the  other  evangelists  did  not  know  of  them;  or 
if  they  did  they  thought  them  not  worth  record- 
ing. In  either  case,  the  words  themselves,  beau- 
tiful as  they  are,  are  a  proof  of  the  fallibility  of 
the  Gospel  writers. 

Matthew  and  Luke  differ  again  with  respect 
to  the  thieves  who  were  crucified  with  Jesus; 
Matthew  makes  the  two  rail  out  on  Jesus,  and 
cast  the  same  into  his  teeth  that  his  persecutors 
did.  Matt,  xxvii.  44.  Luke  represents  one  of 
the  malefactors  as  railing  out  on  Jesus  and  the 
other  as  rebuking  him  and  calling  upon  Jesus  to 
remember  him  when  he  comes  in  his  kingdom. 
Luke  xxiii.  39-43.  On  the  Universalism  of  Luke 
compared  with  the  Judaism  of  Matthew,  I  will 
here  add  that  Matthew  has  Jesus  send  out 
twelve  disciples  to  preach.  He  told  them  not  to 
go  into. the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  any 
city  of  the.  Samaritans  enter  ye  not,  etc.  But 
when  Luke  records  that  circumstance  all  that 
matter  is  left  out.  See  Luke. vi»  .13^513;^  3p*  ^  But 
Luke,  being  a  Universalist, .  send^  seventy  out; 
that  is  one  for  each,  of  the:  ■  seventy  ;G€ntiie  na- 
tions.   See  Luke  >s.'li -2.  ^  ^- •':    '^■'-    ^'^"--     v^v;-^: 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  ST.   LUKE.      277 

This  ends  the  review  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
If  the  evidence  is  not  sufficient  to  convince  the 
candid  reader  that  they  were  merely  human  pro- 
ductions, it  is  because  he  is  lost  to  reason. 


CHAPTER  XIY. 

THE  LAST  GOSPEL. 

-'Nimbus  of  Legendary  Matter"— In  What  Does  John  Differ 
From  Other  Gospels?— Dr.  Sunderland's  Statement— Leg- 
endary Stories— The  Author  of  John  not  Trustworthy 
as  a  Historian— Mr.  Chadwick's  Thoughts  on  John- 
Jesus'  First  Miracle— A  Drunken  Civihxation— No  Drunk- 
en Buddhists  or  Mohammedans— The  Miracle  at  the 
Pool  of  Bethesda— Did  This  Miracle  Occur?— Did  Jesus 
Make  New  Eyes  for  one  Born  Blind?— Resurrection  of 
Lazarus— Differences  Between  John  and  the  Synoptics- 
John  not  the  Author  of  Fourth  Gospel— Stories  which 
have  no  Foundation  in  Fact— Too  Many  Books— Not 
Written  Until  After  Justin  Martyr's  Day. 

We  will  next  consider  *'The  Gospel  according 
CO  St.  John." 

A  writer  has  said,  "Every  Historic  Religion 
that  has  won  for  itself  a  place  in  the  world's 
history  has  evolved  from  a  core  of  fact  a  nim- 
bus of  legendary  matter  which  criticism  cannot 
always  separate,  and  which  the  popular  faith 
does  not  always  separate." 

This  is  a  truth  which  I  think  no  theological 
scholar  will  deny.  This  "nimbus  of  legendary 
matter,  which  criticism  cannot  always  sepa- 
rate/' though   it   may  take   from   the  historical 


THE  LAST  GOSPEL.  279 

prestige  of  religions,  takes  very  little  from  their 
ethical  status. 

If  the  reasoning  which  has  been  submitted  on 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  is  true,  then  they  are 
human  and  only  human.  It  is  human  to  err. 
While  all  modern  criticism  denies  the  inerrancy 
of  these  writings,  I  know  of  no  real  scholars 
who  will  tell  us  they  are  utterly  worthless. 
Our  best  historians  may  and  do  err,  j-et  no  one 
would  think  of  throwing  all  history  away  be- 
cause of  the  errors  and  interpolations  which  oc- 
casionally creep  into  the  writings  of  historians. 
So  while  the  Synoptic  Gospels  differ  on  many 
points  there  is  at  least  a  general  ethical  and 
spiritual  agreement.  Nearly  all  great  students 
agree  that  there  was  a  great  moral  teacher  in 
Palestine  near  twenty  centuries  ago,  around 
whom  all  these  legends  cluster. 

The  book  of  John,  while  perhaps  as  high  in  its 
ethics  as  any  other,  has  more  of  these  legends 
than  any  other  of  the  so-called  Gospels.  It  is  a 
record  sai  generi'S.  I  cannot  better  explain  my 
meaning  than  b^'-  making  a  rather  lengthy  ex- 
tract from  Dr.  Sunderland.  On  pages  129,  130, 
of  his  ''Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Bible,"  he 
sa^'s: 

The  Sj-n optics  represent  Christ's  ministry  as  only  one 
year  in  length;  the  Fourth  Gospel  a«  three  years.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Synoptics  his  ministry  was  carried  on 
almost  wholly  in  Galilee,  and  only  once  did  he  visit 
Jerusalem  and  that  was  near  the  close  of  his  life.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Fourth  Gospel  he  viiited  Jerusalem  re- 
peatedly, and  a  large  part  of  his  ministry  was  carried 


280     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

on  in  juaea.  in  the  S3moptics  his  human  birth  is  giv- 
en; in  the  fourth  he  is  the  pre-existent  Logos  or  Wore 
—co-existent  with  God— and,  as  such,  descended  to  the 
earth,  and  manifested  in  human  form.  In  the  Synop- 
tic Gospels  Jesus  is  a  man;  he  eats,  sleeps,  hungers, 
thirsts,  grows  weary,  is  tempted,  grows  in  knowledge, 
shrinks  from  pain,  is  dissappointed,  prays,  even  loses 
temporarily  his  vision  of  God,  is  limited  in  knowledge 
and  power — goes  through  the  world  even  as  a  man 
among  men.  True,  he  is  represented  as  having  had  a 
miraculous  birth;  but  men  in  that  age  thought  Plato 
and  Alexander  and  Augustus  Ceeser  miraculously  bom. 
He  is  represented  as  working  miracles;  but  miracle 
working  was  regarded  as  common.  He  is  represented 
as  rising  from  the  dead;  but,  so  had  Samuel  and 
Moses,  and  Elijah  risen  from  the  dead,  and  they  were 
only  men. 

"But  when  we  pass  on  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  we  are 
in  a  wholly  different  atmosphere;  Jesus  is  no  longer 
a  man.  He  descends  into  the  world  from  above,  not 
quite  God,  but  much  more  than  man;  and  he  walks 
through  the  world  as  a  being  from  another  sphere. 
His  whole  manner  of  teaching  is  different.  In  the  Sy- 
noptic Gospels  he  ever\'where  teaches  in  parables,  and 
in  brief  and  concise  sentences.  In  the  Fourth  Gospel 
there  is  not  a  parable;  and  in  place  of  the  crystal, 
clear,  short  sentences,  each  so  brief  and  sharp  and 
fresh  and  full  of  meaning  that  nobody  can  ever  forget 
them;  he  everywhere  speaks  in  long  sentences,  and 
elaborate,  mystical,  metaphysical  discourses.  In  short, 
the  whole  Fourth  Gospel  shows  that  it  was  composed 
with  a  doctrinal  purpose  in  view.  It  is  not  a  mere 
narrative,  written  without  bias,  to  tell  simply  what 
Jesus  did  and  said.    It  is  a  plea,  an  argument,  a  doc- 


THE   LAST  GOSPEL.  281 

ument,  written  to  show  that  Jesus  was  the  Incarnate 
Word  of  God." 

I  think  the  statement  made  in  the  above  para- 
graph is  true,  though  not  to  so  great  an  extent, 
of  the  synoptics;  especially  of  Matthew  and 
Luke.  It  seems  to  me  that  I  have  demonsti^ited 
the  Judaizing  tendency  of  Matthew  and  the  ten- 
dency to  the  opposite  extreme  of  Luke. 

These  quotations,  though  lengthy,  are  ft-om  a 
high  and  honorable  source;  I  must  therefore 
make  one  more.  On  pages  131,  132  of  this 
book,  Mr.   Sunderland  says: 

*'Tn  the  light  of  the  scholarship  of  otir  time  it  has  to 
be  confessed  that  there  is  a  legendary  element  in  the 
Gospels,  just  as  we  haA'-e  found  that  there  are  legends 
in  the  various  part  of  the  Old  Testament.  Not  a  few 
of  the  Gospel  miracle-stories  are  undoubtedly  legends. 
For  example  that  exceptionally  interesting  group  of 
wonder-stories  which  gather  about  the  birth  of  Jesus,  as 
so  many  similar  tales  have  gathered  around  the  birth 
of  so  many  other  great  characters  of  history.  Indeed 
these  birth-stories  of  our  Evangelists  are  almost  pre- 
ciseU'  the  same  as  those  we  find  in  Buddhistic  litera- 
ture haloing  the  birth  of  Guatama. 

"An  interesting  thing  about  our  Gospel  birth-stories 
is  that  we  are  able  to  detect  them  in  the  very  process, 
as  it  w^ere,  of  their  legendary  growth;  and  by  this 
means,  we  get  proof  that,  instead  of  being  a  part  of 
the  real  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus  they  almost  certain- 
1\^  attached  themselves  to  the  Gospel  records  late,  at 
a  time  which  we  can  approximately  fix.  To  see  this 
w^e  have  only  to  open  oirr  Bibles.  Turning  to  the 
book  of  Mark,  our  earliest  Gospel,  wc  find  not  one  of 
these  birth-stories  of  Jesus  there.      Passing    on   to  the 


282     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

mter  records,  Matthew,,  and  Luke  we  find  them  all. 
The  inference  seems  inevitable  that  when  Mark's  Gos- 
pel was  written  they  were  not  yet  in  existence,  but 
when  the  later  Gospels  were  compiled  they  have  come 
into  being,  and  have  found  general  credence,  as  such 
wonder-stories  easily  do;  and  hence,  the  edit©rs  of 
these  two  Gospels  incorporate  them  into  their  narra- 
tives." 

I;  have  said  before  that  it  has  been  supposed 
that  the  Gospel  according-  to  St.  John  was  writ- 
ten, not  as  containing  a  synopsis  of  all  that  Jes- 
us said  and  did  but  as  a  kind  of  addendum  to 
the  Synoptics;  and,  as  Mr.  Sunderland  says: 
''with  a  definite  end  in  view."  John,  following 
all  the  other  Gospels  in  point  of  time  will  natur- 
ally contain  more  of  the  marvelous  than  jeither 
of  the  others.  He  writes  to  build  up  a  system, 
and,  in  his  efforts  to  dogmatize,  pa^^s  little  re- 
gard to  historic  verity.    Mr.  Chadwick  says: 

"If  he  was  the  man  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  he  was 
not  the  mysterious  being  of  the  F'ourth.  If  his  minis- 
try w^as  only  one  A'^ear  long  it  was  not  three.  If  he 
only  made  one  journey  to  Jerusalem,  he  did  not  make 
many.  If  his  method  of  teaching  was  that  of  the  Sy- 
noptics, it  was  not  that  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  If  he 
was  the  Jew  of  Matthew  he  was  not  the  anti-Jew  of 
John.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  any  difference  of 
stand-point  or  subjective  bias  is  sufficient  to  account 
for  such  differences  of  representation  as  there  are  be- 
tween the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Synoptics.  But 
granting  the  possibility  of  this,  Jesus  was  one  thing  or 
another;  what  was  he?  What  did  he  teach?  What 
did  he  do?  It  is  an  astonishing  Revelation,  which  in 
eludes  such  different  representations  of  its  central  per* 


THE  LAST  GOSPEL.  283 

sonage  without  distinguishing  them  as  true  and  false, 
er  at  least  as  more  or  less  true." 

I  have  proved  that  Matthew  relates  many 
things  that  Mark  leaves  unsaid,  and  that  Luke 
relates  mRnj  more  which  were  forgotten  or 
thought  of  so  little  importance  by  both  Mark 
and  Matthew  that  neither  of  them  referred  to 
theni.  I  now  say  that  John  beats  all  of  the 
Svnoptics.  Among  the  miracles  related  by  John 
concerning  w^hich  the  other  Gospel  writers  knew 
nothing,  or  if  they  knew,  thought  not  worth 
mentioning  are: 

First,  the  turning  of  water  into  wine,  at  the 
wedding  in  Caana  of  Galilee.  As  this  was  the 
very  first  miracle  that  Jesus  ever  performed  and 
as  the  Gospel  writers  undertake  to  prove  who 
and  what  Jesus  was  by  his  miracles  they  were 
surely  reprehensible  for  throwing  this  one  into 
the  waste  basket. 

This  miracle  was  done  in  order  that  people, 
who  were  "well  drunken,"  (or,  who  were  verv^ 
drunk,  would  read  better,)  might,  contrary  to 
the  usual  custom,  have  better  wine  on  which  to 
finish  their  bibulous  feast.    See  Jno.  ii.  1-11. 

Jesus  was  jonng  when  he  tried  his  hand  at 
t":iis  miracle,  and  he  never  repeated  it;  and  the 
most  of  us  are  glad.  Right  minded  people  think 
that  he  there  lost  a  golden  opportunity  to  de- 
liver a  short  temperance  lectxire— that  if  he  had 
done  that  instead  of  making  wine  to  make  these 
people  more  drunk— or  if  the  writer  of  the  story 
had    consigned    the    story    to    the    wastebasket, 


284     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Christianity  would  stand  higher  than  it  does. 
Christianity  has  given  us  the  most  drunken  civi- 
Hzation  under  the  sun.  If  Buddha  had  done  the 
same  thing  as  John  represents  Jesus  as  having 
done,  there  might  be  the  same  proportion  of 
drunkenness  among  the  five  hundred  millions 
of  Buddhists,  as  there  are  in  England  or  America, 
which  are  par  excellence     Christian  nations. 

If  Mohammed  had  followed  the  example  of 
Jesus  there  would  perhaps  be  as  much  drunken- 
ness among  his  two  hundred  and  eighty  million 
of  followers  as  there  is  in  Christian  England  or 
America. 

Second,  the  story  of  the  miracle  wrought  at 
the  Pool  of  Bethesda,  recorded  in  John  v.  1-9, 
is  found  no  where  else  in  the  Bible.  It  does  not 
seem  possible  that  it  can  be  true.  There  could 
hardly  be  such  a  place,  where  a  great  multitude 
of  sick  people  could  assemble  and  remain  for  a 
period  of  not  less  than  thirty-eight  years,  (see 
verse  9)  that  an  angel  could  come  down  and 
cause  an  annual  troubling  of  the  waters,  and 
heal  just  one  and  no  more  at  each  visit,  atid 
nobody  but  the  writer  of  this  book  ever  have 
heard  of  it. 

It  seems  strange  if  Jesus  was  as  good  and 
great  as  he  has  been  represented  to  be,  that  he 
did  not  extend  his  miracle  working  power  to  a 
few  more  of  that  "great  multitude  of  sick  folk.'* 
Had  he  tried  his  hand  on  all  of  them,  or  set 
even  a  small  majority  of  them  to  carrjHng  away 
their  beds   it  would    have   recommended  him  to 


THE  LAST  GOSPEL.  285 

the  world  and  advertised  his  work  as  nothing 
else  has  ever  done. 

But  we  must  not  foisget  the  main  question, 
which  was,  what  were  these  synoptical  gentle- 
men doing  that  they  overlooked  this  matter?  A 
cripple  carrying  his  bed  around,  especially  after 
having  lain  upon  it  for  thirty-eight  years  would, 
one  would  think,  naturally  create  some  excite- 
ment; 3^et  nowhere  else  in  all  the  world  has  this 
been  mentioned. 

Third,  the  story  of  making  new  ej^es  for  a 
man  born  blind,  recorded  nowhere  else  in  the 
Bible  except  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  this  book, 
ought  to  have  been  recorded  elsewhere.  It  e^ves 
the  Jews  an  opportunity  to  cast  the  man  out 
of  the  synagogue,  and  to  manifest  their  wrath 
toward  Jesus.  It  should  have  been  noticed  by 
the   s\'n optics. 

Fourth,  the  greatest  of  all  miracles,  which  the 
other  biographers  thought  not  worth  mention- 
ing, is  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus.  How  strange 
it  is,  if  this  story  is  true,  that  the  other  writers 
should  tell  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Ruler's 
daughter,  and  Luke  should  mention  the  resusci- 
tation of  the  widow's  son  when  on  the  way  to 
the  grave,  and  yet  they  should  all  forget  this 
greatest  of  all  miracles.  Lazarus  had  been  dead 
four  days,  and,  "by  this  time  he  stinketh."  Jno. 
xi.  39.  This  was  the  most  wonderful  of  all 
resurrections,  and  yet  it  is  not  once  referred  to 
elsewhere  in  the  Bible.  Is  not  this  proof  that 
the  stories  of  miracles  like  other  stories  grew  in. 


286     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

the  inverse  ratio  as  distance  intervenes  between 
the  narrator  and  the  time  when  it  should  have 
occurred? 

Mr.  Chadwick,  after  making  the  statement 
that  Mark  has  but  twentj^-four  verses  which 
cannot  be  found  in  one  of  the  other  synoptics, 
and  that  Luke  is  one-third  new  mattc4-.  says: 
''Two-thirds  of  John  are  absent  from  the  three 
synoptics  put  together." 

I  have  shown  that  the  S3moptic  Gospels  differ 
from  each  other,  but  John  differs  from  all  of 
them.  In  fact  the  difference  is  so  great  that  the 
one  v^ho  makes  an  attempt  to  make  them  har- 
monize with  each  other  only  makes  a  laughing 
stock  of  himself.  As  samples  of  these  incongru- 
ities I  present  the  following. 

1.  The  Synoptics  represent  Jesus  as  eating 
the  passover.  Matt.  xxi.  26-29.  Mark  xiv. 
12-18.  Luke  xvii.  7-20.  John  represents  Jesus 
as  not  eating  the  passover,  but  as  being  killed 
on  that  day.  Jno.  xix.  14.  There  is  no  possi- 
bility of  harmonizing  these  contradictory  posi- 
tions. 

2.  Jesus'  driving  the  money  changers  out  of 
the  temple  was,  according  to  the  Synoptics, 
among  his  last  public  works.  Matt.  xxi.  12. 
Mark  xi.  15.  Luke  xix.  45.  With  John  this  was 
done  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  ministr3\ 

It  was  the  very  first  thing  he  did  after  turn- 
ing water  into  wine.  One  is  almost  led  to  sus- 
pect that  the  wine  may  have  had  something  to 
do  with  this  rather  anarchistic  manifestation. 


THE   LAST  GOSPEL.  287 

3.  The  Synoptics  place  Jesus'  ministry  in  Gali- 
lee; he  does  not  go  to  Jerusalem  until  he  goes 
there  to  deliver  a  private  talk  to  his  disciples, 
according  to  Matthew,  or  a  public  discourse  ac- 
cording to  Luke,  and  to  die.  According  to  John, 
Jesus'  first  sermon  was  delivered  in  Jerusalem. 

4.  In  the  Synoptics  Jesus'  ministry  only  lasted 
one  year.  In  John  he  attended  four  annual  pass- 
overs.  Here  it  is  three  against  one— somebody 
was  mistaken. 

5.  In  the  other  Gospels  the  Jews  treat  Jesus 
with  some  respect;  the  common  people  "heard 
him  gladly."  In  John  the  life  of  Jesus  was  one 
continuous  quarrel  with  the  Jews;  and  several 
times  they  sought  to  stone  him  to  death.  The 
fact  is,  this  book  represents  the  Jews  as  being 
not  only  wicked  in  their  opposition  to  Jesus,  but 
almost  idiotic  in  their  manifestations  of  enmity. 
According  to  John  the  Jews  made  not  less  than 
eight  attempts  to  kill  Jesus  before  tliey  succeed- 
ed. See  Jno.  v.  16-18.  vii.  1,  30.  viii  40,  59.  x. 
33,  39.  How  strangely  remisj  these  other  writ- 
ers were  to  allow  these  eight  attempts  to  murder 
their  master  pass  without  notice. 

6.  That  glorious  sermon  on  the  mount  is  not 
reported  in  the  book  of  John,  but  there  are  nu- 
merous discourses  and  debates  reported,  as  hav- 
ing been  delivered  in  the  temple  and  elsewhere. 
Jno.  xiv.  is  a  sermon  delivered  to  his  disciples — 
a  kind  of  funeral  sermon,  not  elsewhere  reported. 

7.  While  the  Lord's  prayer  is  not  in  John 
there  is  a  lengthy  prayer  reported    in  the  seven- 


288     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

teeni'li  chapter.  The  prayer  is  very  narrow.  In 
it  he  says,  **I  pray  not  for  the  world,  but  for 
those  thou  hast  given  me  out  of  the  world." 
Verse  9. 

In  one  place  the  hatred  of  Judaism  by  the  au- 
thor of  this  book  led  him  to  represent  Jesus  as 
saying:  *'A11  that  came  before  nie  are  thieves  and 
robbers."  Jno.  x.  8.  This  was  rather  hard  on 
Moses;  that  may  have  been  the  reason  why 
Matthew  left  it  out  of  his  book. 

Taking  the  book  of  John  altogether,  I  am  glad 
that  the  Higher  Criticism  has  proved  that  John 
was  not  its  author — that  it  \\ras  the  product  of 
the  latter  half  of  the  second  centur3\  On  this 
point  Mr.  Chad  wick  says: 

"Ever3^\vhere  in  John  wt  come  upon  a  more  develop- 
ed stage  of  Chri'^tianity  Jhnn  in  the  Synoptics.  The 
scene,  the  atmosphere  is  different.  In  the  Synoptics, 
Judaism,  the  temple,  the  law,  the  Messianic  kingdom 
are  omnipresent.  In  John  they  are  remote  and 
vague.  In  Matthew  Jesus  is  always  yearning  over  his 
own  nation.  In  John  he  has  no  other  sentiment  for  it 
than  hate  and  scorn.  In  Matthew  the  sanction  of  the 
prophets  is  the  great  credential.  In  John  his  dignity 
can  tolerate  no  previous  approximation.  'All  that 
came  before  me'  he  says,  'are  thieves  and  robbers.' 
Surely,  to  put  such  narrowness  into  the  mouth  of 
Jesus,  was  not  to  do  him  honor." 

There  are  several  stories  in  the  book  of  John, 
which  are  now  acknowledged  to  have  no  found- 
ation in  fact.  The  story  of  the  Pool  of  Bethesda 
is  one.  Also  the  story  of  the  woman  taken  in 
the  very^  act  of  adultery.    It  is  now  almost  uni- 


THE  LAST  GOSPEL.  289 

versally  conceded  that  the  last  chapter  of  John 
was  put  in  by  a  later  hand;  those  who  do  not 
acknow1edp:e  that,  admit  that  if  the  John  who 
wrote  this  book  when  he  was  between  ninety 
and  one  hundred  A-ears  old,  wrote  this  chapter 
it  was  at  a  nuicli  later  date  than  when  he  wrote 
the  twenty  previous  chapters. 

It  seems  that  this  Avriter  finally  became  tired 
of  writing  big  stones,  and  so  he  winds  his  book 
up  with  the  following: 

"And  there  are  also  many  things  which  Jesus  did, 
the  which,  if  they  shoukl  be  written,  everj^  one,  I  sup- 
pose that  even  the  world  itself  could  not  contain  ttie 
books  that  should  be  written," 

The  writer  must  have  intended  this  as  hyper- 
bole, otherwise,  what  a  library  we  should  have. 

In  conclusion  upon  the  internal  testimonies  of 
this  book,  I  will  say  that  ^when  the  time  comes 
for  me  to  write  on  the  book  of  Revelation,  I  will 
show  that  there  was  no  possibility  of  Jesus'  dis- 
ciple John  writing  all  of  this  book;  I  will  then 
show  that  the  author  of  one  of  these  books  could 
by  no  possibility  be  either  of  the  authors  of  the 
other. 

Wliile  it  is  no  part  of  the  Higher  Criticism  to 
go  into  the  external  evidences,  or  Lower  Criti- 
cism, there  is  no  harm  in  m^^  sa^^ng  the  writ- 
ing of  this  book  was  never  attributed  to  John, 
the  immediate  disciple  of  Jesus,  until  it  was  done 
by  Theophilus,  about  A.  D.  180.  Justin  Martyr 
believed  in  and  advocated,  if  he  did  not  origi- 
nate the  Johnine  doctrine.     He  wrote    about  A. 


290     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

D.  150.  The  wonder  is,  if  he  knew  of  the  exist- 
ence of  such  a  book  as  that  of  John,  he 
did  not  quote  from  it.  The  church  in  all  its 
quarrels  about  the  paschal  doctrine,  in  100  to 
150,  never  in  any  v^ay  referred  to  this  book^ 
which  makes  Christ  our  pass  over. 

Here  I  must  leave  the  Gospels.  1  cannot  study 
or  write  on  them  ^thout  increasing  my  con- 
viction of  the  human  frailties  of  their  writers.  I 
would  advise  all  who  believe  in  their  inerrancy^ 
if  they  wish  to  retain  that  behef,  to  avoid  criti- 
cally reading  them. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

ACTS  OF    THE    APOSTLES. 

Different  Titles  to  this  Book— Claims  to  have  been  Writ- 
ten b\^  the  Author  of  Luke — Not  Written  in  the  First  Cen- 
tury—Why this  Book  was  Written — Writer  Claims  to  be 
a  Companion  of  Paxil — The  Luke  of  Acts  Contradicts  the 
Luke  who  Wrote  the  Gospel — Paul  Contradicts  the  Writ- 
er of  Acts — Paul,  in  Galatiaus  Explains  the  Controversy 
Referred  to  in  Acts  xv. — Was  this  a  Conference,  or  a 
Quarrel? — Did  Paul  Circumcise  Timoth3'? — Who  Made  the 
Speeches  in  Acts? — Did  Paul  Retain  his  Judaism? — Paul 
Opposed  to  the  Jewish  Law — Chadwick  Explains — Why 
Acts  was  Written. 

Tiaking  the  Bible  in  its  regular  course  I  must 
next  examine  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  or  as  the  ti- 
tle reads  in  the  Greek,  *'The  practice,"  or  "The 
Deeds  of  The  Apostles."  It  is  said  that  the  Sinaitic 
manuscript  has  the  title  simply  "Acts,"  while  the 
Vatican  has  "Acts  of  Apostles."  This  book  is  cer- 
tainly not  the  Acts  of  all  the  Apostles;  it  might, 
if  true,  be  called  "Some  of  the  Acts  of  Peter  and 
Paul,  with  an  occasional  mention  of  other 
Apostles." 

This  book  has  justly  bean  called  a  "charming 
fiction."    If  it  is   not    a   fiction   it   is  at  least  a 


292      THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

piece  of  ''tendency  writing."  That  is,  the  author 
had  a  theory  to  maintain — a  theory  of  which, 
from  first  to  last,  he  ne^er  lost  sight.  If  there 
wrere  facts  to  justify  him  in  the  points  he  had  in 
view  he  was,  perhaps,  glad  of  it.  If  not,  he 
went  on  and  made  "facts"  to  suit  the  case. 

The  idea  that  *'The  Gospel  according  to  St. 
Ivuke"  was  written  by  Luke,  has  led  to  the  mis- 
taken supposition  that  Dr.  Luke  must  have  been 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Acts.  The  author  of 
Luke  writes  his  narrative  as  a  private  letter  ta 
his  friend,  ''The  Most  Excellent  Theophilus." 
The  book  of  Acts  begms  with  a  reference  to  that 
book  by  saying: 

"The  former  treaties  have  I  made  with  thee,  O,, 
most  excellent  Theophilus,  of  all  that  Jesus  began 
both  to  do  and  teach,  until  the  day  that  he  was- 
taken  up,  after  that,  he,  through 'the  Holy  Ghost,  had 
given  commandments  unto  the  apostles,  whom  he  ha^ 
chosen."    Acts  i.  1-2. 

As  it  has  been  clearly  proved  that  "Luke,  the 
beloved  physician,"  did  not  write  the  book  of 
Luke,  and  as  this  book,  by  referring,  as  it  does,, 
to  the  book  of  Luke,  clearly  proves  that  it  was 
not  written  until  after  that  book  was  in  the 
hands  of  Theophilus,  it  follows  that  Luke  did 
'not  write  this. 

J  think  the  fact  that  no  one  ever  thought  of 
Luke  being  the  author  of  this  book  until  about 
the  year  182,  puts  the  idea  that  Luke  was  its- 
author  out  of  the  question.  In  fact,  Ireneus' 
statement  made  in  182,  is    the    earliest    genuine 


ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  293 

reference  to  this  book;  all  others  being  interpo- 
lations. After  this,  testimonies  are  numerous  as 
to  the  existence  of  this  book;  but,  as  Mr.  Gladden 
says:  * 'The  earliest  of  them  testified  a  hundred 
years  after  the  death  of  Luke.  The  direct  testi- 
mony as  to  the  existence  of  this  book  in  the 
first  two  centuries  is  not  therefore  altogether 
-satisfactory." 

If  time  and  space  were  not  just  no^v  at  a 
premium  it  might  be  interesting  to  go  through 
this  book  and  present  a  kind  of  resume  of  its 
contents.  As  it  is  I  will  forego  the  pleasure. 
The  book  of  Acts  w^as  not  written  until  after 
the  Christian  Religion  had  ceased,  or  was  about 
•ceasing  to  be  a  kind  of  addendum  to  Judaism, 
and  had  become  catholic  or  universal.  On  this 
point  Peter  and  Paul  differed,  and  even  quar- 
reled. Peter  made  Christianity  a  kind  of  side 
attachment  to  Judaism.  Paul  cut  it  entirely 
away  from  every  former  religion.  Paul  was 
what  might  be  called  a  Gnostic  Catholic.  This 
will  be  proved  by  his  letters.  These  men,  as  be- 
fore stated,  not  only  differed,  but  they  actually 
quarreled  and  parted  over  these  differences  of 
opinion. 

About  the  year  185,  the  Gnostic  or  Universal 
Christians  and  the  Jews,  or  Ebionitish  Chris- 
tians met  and  settled  their  differences,  which  had 
lasted  nearly  a  century;  this  settlement  formed 
the  Church  Universal,  or  the  CathoHc  Church. 

Some  one  interested  in  that  universalism  as 
opposed   to    Judaism    wrote    first   the  book    of 


294     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Luke,  to  counteract  the  Ebonitish  book  of  Mat- 
thew; and  afterwards  the  book  of  Acts,  with 
the  view  of  harmonizing  the  differences  between 
the  Petrine  and  Pauline  Christians.  As  the  task 
was  an  impossible  one,  the  mistakes  in  the  book 
of  Acts  are  so  palpable  that  he  who  runs  may- 
read  them. 

There  is  little  room  to  doubt  that  Luke  was 
for  a  time  a  companion  of  Paul.  It  -was  there- 
fore a  point  well  taken  for  this  writer  to  repre- 
sent himself  as  being  a  traveling  companion  of 
Paul,  as  he  does  in  several  places.  In  Acts  xvi. 
10,  after  speaking  of  Paul's  vision  of  the  man 
of  Macedonia,  he  says,  '^Immediately  we  endeav- 
ored to  go  into  Macedonia."  In  verse  11  he 
says,  "Therefore  loosing  from  Troas  -we  came, 
v^ith  a  straight  course  to  Samothracia."  Verse 
13  says,  ''And  on  the  Sabbath  we  went  out  of 
the  city  by  the  river  side."  The  word  r/s,  in 
verse  15  is  supplied  by  King  James'  translators. 
Verse  16,  ''We  went  to  prayer."  Verse  17  tells 
of  the  damsel  following  as.  The  same  kind  of 
statements  are  found  in  several  other  places  in 
this  book.  Vide  xx.  4,  15;  xxi.  1,  18;  xxvii.  1; 
xxviii.  16. 

Whether  the  writer  quotes  these  statements^ 
or  whether  he  wanted  to  represent  himself  as 
belonging  to  the  party  of  whom  he  was  speak- 
ing is  not  positively  knov^m.  Tliese  are  the 
things  which  have  led  people  to  think  the  book 
of  Acts  was  written  by  one  of  Paul's  immediate 
companions. 


ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  295 

It  is  well  known  that  Paul  and  Luke  were  to- 
gether during  the  latter  part  of  Paul's  life.  In 
his  second  letter  to  Timothy,  which  was  writ- 
ten at  Rome,  he  says,  in  chapter  four,  verse  11, 
^'Only  Luke  is  with  me;  take-  Mark  and  bring 
him  with  thee;  for  he  is  profitable  to  thee  and 
to  me." 

Such  texts  made  it  handy  for  a  second  century 
writer  to  affix  the  name  of  Luke  to  his  produc- 
tion. Although  this  book  is  written,  perhaps, 
by  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Luke,  his  memory 
was  not  the  best.  He  forgot  some  things  he 
said  in  Luke,  and  contradicted  them  in  Acts.  In 
Luke  he  puts  the  ascension  of  Jesus  on  the  day 
of  his  resurrection.  See  Luke  xxiv.  49-51.  Also 
he  made  him  ascend  from  Bethany.  In  the  book 
of  Acts  he  makes  him  ascend  forty  days  later. 
See  Acts  i.  3;  and  from  the  Mount  of  Olives. 
Verse  12.  A  writer  who  thus  contradicts  him- 
self may  be  expected  to  contradict  others.  Those 
who  expect  this  will  not  be  disappointed,  for 
the  writer  of  Acts  does  that  very  thing.  He  has 
Jesus  ascend  from  Bethany,  in  Luke,  and  from 
the  Mount  of  Olives,  in  Acts,  while  Matthew 
has  him  ascend   from    Galilee.    Matt,  xxviii.  16. 

So  far  as  this  book  refers  to  matters  con- 
tained in  other  bibhcal  records  is  concerned  it 
contradicts  them.  In  Acts  as  soon  as  Paul  is 
converted  he  goes  to  Jerusalem.  Acts  ix.  26. 
When  Paul  relates  the  matter,  he  tells  us  that 
he  went  to  Arabia;  and  that  he  did  not  go  to 
Jerusalem  for  three  years.    Gal.  i.  17,  18. 


296     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

In  Acts  XV.  1,  2,  we  find  the  cliurch  was 
troubled  with  Judaizing  teachers  who  required 
the  Christians  of  other  nations  to  be  circumcised 
and  keep  the  laws  of  Moses;  Paul  and  Barnabas 
were  sent  from  Antiooli  to  inquire  about  it. 
They  went  and  disputed  the  matter  and  then 
went  to  Jerusalem.  In  the  second  chapter  of 
Galatians  Paul  gives  a  vastly  different  version 
of  the  story.  Please  read  the  whole  chapter; 
there  Paul  represents  that  he  took  one  side  of 
the  question  and  Peter  the  other.  Paul  says 
that  "Peter  was  to  be  blamed,"  and  that  he 
w^ithstood  him  face  to  face.  Paul  says  in  verse 
14,  "But  when  I  saw  that  they  walked  not  up- 
rightly according  to  the  truth  of  the  gospel,  I 
said  unto  Peter  before  them  all,  if  thou  being 
a  Jew,  livest  after  the  manner  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  not  as  do  the  Jews,  why  compellest  thou 
the  Gentiles  to  live  as  do  the  Jews?" 

The  fact  is,  Paul  writes  in  the  interest  of  his 
party.  The  writer  of  Acts  writes  to  try  to  con- 
vince the  church  of  a  century  later  that  the 
church  ^^as  practically  a  unit;  hence  he  makes 
use  of  every  opportunity  to  mimify  these  differ- 
ences. 

The  writer  of  the  book  of  Acts  makes  this 
meeting  a  formal  conference,  assembled  on  pur- 
pose to  advise  with  each  other  as  to  what  posi- 
tion the  church  should  take  with  reference  to  the 
law  of  Moses.  In  the  report,  as  made  by  Paul 
in  his  letter  to  the  Galatians,  there  was  nothing 
formal  about  this.    It  was  a  kind  of  "go  as  you 


ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  297 

please"  quarrel  between  two  of  the  apostles  and 
their  followers.  In  this  dispute  Barnabas  final- 
ly decides  with  Peter  and  the  pa.rty  of  the  Ebio- 
nites,  and  against  Paul,  and  his  Universalist 
friends.  This  decision  broke  friendship  between 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  in  so  much  that  he,  and 
Paul  separated.  Barnabas  joined  the  Jewish- 
Petrine  party,  and  Paul  and  a  Gentile  by  the 
tlie  name  of  Silas  formed  a  copartnership.  Paul 
saj's:  "Barnabas  was  carried  awa3'  with  their 
dissimulation."    Gal.  ii.  13. 

When  the  apostles  who  held  this  conference, 
according  to  this  writer,  wrote  to  the  Gentile 
brethren,  they  admonished  them  to  abstain  from 
meats  offered  to  idols — Acts  xv.  21-28;  but  when 
Paul  who  is  represented  as  having  endorsed  this 
letter,  wrote  to  the  Gentiles  he  told  them  a  dif- 
ferent story.  See  I  Cor.  viii.  whole  chapter,  x. 
25-27. 

These  Judaizers  wanted  Paul  to  have  Titus,  a 
Greecian,  circumcised;  but  this  he  refuses  to  do. 
He  wrote  to  his  Galatian  brethren  that  he  would 
give  place  to  such,  "no,  not  for  an  hour."  See 
Gal.  ii.  3-5. 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  the  writer  of  the 
book  of  Acts  represents  Paul  as  taking  Timothy 
and  circumcising  him.  Acts  xvi.  3.  Can  anyone 
believe  that  Paul  was  such  a  toady  as  that? 

There  are  many  speeches  made  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  but  they  all  evidently  came  from 
the  same  mind.  No  matter  by  whom  they  were 
ostensibly    made,    the    speeches    have    a   general 


298     THE   BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

sameness  which  cannot  be  explained  on  any 
other  hypothesis  than  that  they  were  made  for, 
and  not  by  the  supposed  speakers.  Peter  makes 
at  least,  three  speeches,  Paul,  not  less  than  six; 
Stephen  makes  the  longest  one  of  any  of  them.   ' 

I  will  not  say  that  these  gentlemen  did  not  all 
make  speeches;  I  will  say  they  did  not  make  the 
speeches  attributed  to  them.  The  reports  are 
too  short  to  be  verbatim  reports,  and  too  long 
to  be  mere  references  to  what  was  said. 

It  is  well  known,  and  can  be  proved  by  his 
speeches  and  writings  that  Paul  abandoned  all 
his  Jewish  ideas;  yet  the  writer  of  Acts  represents 
him  as  being  neither  more  nor  less  than  a  Jew 
with  a  few  Christian  attachments.  He  is  repre- 
sented as  being  thoroughly  devoted  to  Jerusalem, 
the  Jewish  rituals  and  the  temple  service.  He  is 
quoted  as  saying,  '*!  must  by  all  means  keep 
this  feast  at  Jerusalem."  Acts  xviii.  21.  He 
was  ready  not  onlj^  to  be  bound  but  to  die  at 
Jerusalem.    Acts  xxi.  13. 

When  he  went  to  Jerusalem  he  is  represented 
as  taking  v^ith  him  four  men — impecunious 
tramps,  and  he  had  his  and  their  heads  shaved, 
and  went  through  the  Jewish  process  of  purifi- 
cation. Acts  xxi.  23-28.  This  was  "undoubtediy 
put  into  this  book  to  show  the  readers,  or  at 
least  to  lead  them  to  suppose  that  Paul  was 
not  so  much  opposed  to  Petrine  Judaism  as 
might  be  supposed. 

I  now  ask,  is  the  story  reasonable?    Can  it  be 


ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  299 

that  an  apostle  who  called  that  law  and  those 
ceremonies,  **The  Ministration  of  Death,"  which 
was  abolished — II  Cor.  iii.  7-11 — would  thus 
prostitute  himself?  This  man  said  he  was  ''dead 
to  the  law."  Gal.  ii.  19.  He  also  declared  the 
law  to  be  dead.  Ro.  vii,  5,  6.  He  told  the  Gal- 
atians  that  those  who  were  of  the  worJis  of 
the  law  were  **under  the  curse."  Gal.  iii.  10. 
His  position  was  that  Christ  had  ''redeemed 
them  from  the  curse  of  the  law."    Verse  13. 

This  Paul  talked  about  "the  middle  wall  of 
partition"  being  "broken  down,"  and  that  the 
law  of  commandments  contained  in  ordinances 
was  abolished.  Eph.  ii.  4-15.  He  tells  his 
Colossian  brethren  about  the  "handwriting  of 
ordinances  being  blotted  out  and  nailed  to  the 
cross,"  and  therefore  he  exhorted  his  brethren  to 
"let  no  one  judge  them,  in  meat  or  drink,  or  in 
respect  to  an  holy  day,  or  the  new  moon,  or 
the  Sabbath  days,"  etc.     Col.  h.  14-17. 

If  Paul  w£is  the  double  character  that  the 
book  of  Acts,  as  compared  with  the  above  ex- 
cerpts from  his  epistles  would  show,  he  was  an 
unworthy  disciple  of  either  Christianity  or 
Judaism. 

I  -will  conclude  the  argument  on  this  book 
with  a  quotation  from  Air.  Chadwick.  On 
pages  259,  260  of  his  "Bible  of  Today"  he 
says: 

**Be  certain  that  it  was  not  from  accident  that  the 
attributes  of  Peter  and  Paul  were  so  shuffled  up  to- 
gether, that  they  masquerade  in  each    other's    armor, 


300   THE  biblt:  and  the  higher  criticism. 

fight  with  eaeh  other's  weapons,  talk  with  each  other's 
voices.  It  is  not  accident  that  we  have  twelve  chap- 
ters devoted  to  Peter  and  then  about  as  many  more 
devoted  to  Paul.  It  is  not  accidental  that  for  almost 
every  event  in  Peter's  career  there  is  a  parallel  in  Paul's, 
—that  if  Peter  confutes  Simon,  the  Magician,  Paul 
must  confute  El^^mas,  the  Sorcerer;  if  Peter  raises  Ta- 
t)itha  from  the  dead,  Paul  must  raise  Eutichus;  if 
Peter  has  a  vision  Paul  must  have  one  for  a  similar 
purpose,  if  Peter's  shadow  would  work  miracles,  so 
could  Paul's  handkerchief.  It  is  not  accidental  also 
that  the  sufferings  of  Peter  are  parallel  with  those  of 
Paul;  that  the  two  men  of  striking  individuality  are 
represented  as  being  as  alike  as  two  peas.  To  repre- 
sent them  as  being  so  alike  is  the  very  purpose  for 
which  the  book  was  written;  in  order  to  conciliate  the 
rivalries  and  hatreds  of  opposing  Pauhne  and  Petrine 
parties  in  the  early  church.  The  writer  was  himself  a 
Paulinist;  himself  a  Universalist,  and  this  book  was 
w^ritten  as  the  basis  of  a  compromise  between  this 
party  and  the  other.  Come,  said  he,  let  us  pretend 
that  they  were  not  so  very  different;  that  Peter  was 
the  first  apostle  to  the  Gentiles;  that  Paul  was  a  de- 
vout adherent  to  the  law.  Is  not  this  better  than  to 
go  on  fighting?  United  we  stand;  divided  we  fall. 
Apparently  the  other  party  said,  Amen.  Certain  it  is 
that  there  was  a  compromise  on  pretty  much  this 
basis  in  the  second  centur3,\  A  Catliolic  Church  was 
lormed  midway  between  the  two  extremes^  of  Petrine 
Ebioniteism  and  Pauline  Gnosticism.  Its  spirit  became 
more  and  m.ore  Pauline  and  its  name  and  tradition 
more  and  more  Petrine." 

The  compromise  above  mentioned    was    abont 
the  year  A.  D.  125.     The    Gospel    of  Luke  was 


ACTS  OF  ti:e  apostles.  301 

written  about  the  time  this  book  was  written, 
perhaps  a  httle  earher  than  this,  and  for  the 
same  purpose;  that  is  to  make  the  church  a  Uni- 
versal and  not  simply  a  Jewish  institution. 

Like  the  book  of  Luke,  much  of  the  book  of 
Acts  was  drawn  from  older  documents.  I  have 
above  referred  to  several  passages  in  which  the 
writer  of  this  book  refers  to  himself  as  the  trav- 
eling companion  of  Paul;  this  of  course  was  nec- 
essary to  make  the  book  effective. 

In  the  days  when  this  book  was  written,  as 
in  the  daj^s  when  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes,  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  and  the  book  of  Daniel  were 
written,  it  was  considered  no  crime  for  writers 
to  use  a  great  and  popular  name.  The  design 
of  the  author  was,  no  doubt,  good.  He  wanted 
to  effect  a  union  between  two  sects  of  Christians 
which  could  probably  have  been  done  in  no  other 
way.  Of  course,  in  this  attempt  the  author  has 
greatly  injured  the  character  of  the  "great  apos- 
tle to  the  Gentiles."  Not  being  able  to  compre- 
hend a  great  character  he  was  not  able  to  rep- 
resent one. 

Here  we  must  leave  this  great  forgery.  The 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  pass  to  a  very  brief  no- 
tice cf  the  Epistles. 


CHAPTER   XVI. 

THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS. 

New  Testament  a  Growth— Authenticity  and  Order  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles — Matter  of  Authorship  of  Minor  Im- 
portance—Paul Does  Not  Claim  Plenary  Inspiration — 
How  Romans  is  Divided— Did  Paul  Thank  God  That 
the  Romans  were  Sinners?— The  "Gifts;"  What  They 
Are — ^A  Good  System  of  Ethics— Chapter  Sixteen'  the 
Work  of  Another  Hand. 

As  most  of  the  Epistles  were  written  before 
either  of  the  four  Gospels  they  should  have  been 
examined  first.  My  determination  to  take  the 
Bible  by  course,  as  it  stands,  was  the  principal 
cause  of  placing  their  examination  after  the 
Gospels  and  the  book  of  Acts. 

The  New  Testament,  like  the  Old,  was  a 
growth;  it  was  considerably  more  than  one  hun- 
dred years  in  being  written,  and  was  many 
more  years  in  getting  into  the  Canon.  Then 
again  after  it  had  found  its  way  there,  and  was 
considered  in  some  sense  a  sacred  book,  it  was 
many  years  before  it  was  esteemed  of  as  much 
importance  as  the  Old  Testament. 

In  the  New  Testament,  as  we  have  it,  are 
several  kinds  of  writing. 


THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  ROMANS.  303 

1.  Biography;  or,  rather,  Biographical  His- 
tory. This  \ve  have  examined  in  the  four  Gos- 
pels and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

2.  It  has  the  Epistolary  writings  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  others.  Those  are  now  to  pass  under 
review. 

3.  It  has  a  book  of  supposed  prophetic  writ- 
ings called  "The  Revelation  of  St.  John  the  Di- 
vine." This  is  the  name  in  the  heading;  the 
name  in  the  book  itself  is,  "The  Revelation  of 
Jesus  Christ,  which  God  gave  unto  him  to  show 
unto  his  servants  things  which  must  shortly 
come  to  pass." 

We  will  first  consider  the  Epistles  of  Paul. 
There  are  fourteen  Epistles  with  which  Paul's 
name  has  been  connected,  but  he  certainly  did 
not  write  them  all.     Mr.  Chadwick  sa\'s: 

"The  nominal  Epistles  of  Paul  may  be  properly 
classed  under  four  heads.  Those  certainly  Pauline — 
Romans,  Corinthians,  Galatians;  those  doubtfully 
Pauline  in  the  order  of  their  doubtfulness,  from  more 
to  less,  Ephesians,  Colossians,  Philipians,  Second  Thes- 
salonians,  Philemon  and  First  Thessalonians.  Those 
almost  certainly  not  Pauline — the  two  to  Timothy 
and  one  to  Titus.  One  certainly  not  the  Apostle's— 
The  Epistles  to  the  Hebrews.  Strangely  enough,  this 
graduation  of  authenticity  has  been  preserved  in  the 
arrangement  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  First  we  have 
the  impregnable  four;  Romans,  the  two  Corinthians, 
and  Galatians;  next  the  doubtful,  led  off  as  they 
should  be,  by  Ephesians.  Then  the  more  doubtful 
pastorals  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  and  the  most  doubt- 
ful 'Hebrews'  last  of  all."    —Bible  of  Today,  p.  192. 


304     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

It  is  tlius  seen  that  it  is  not  certain  that  Paul 
wrote  more  than  four  of  the  Epistles  attributed 
to  him.  Some  of  the  world's  best  scholars  are 
perfectly  sure  that  Paul  wrote  no  more  than 
four  of  tlicm;  others  think  he  wrote  seven,  and 
stiil  others  think  he  may  have  written  ten  of 
the  fourteen  Epistles  which  are  now  accredited 
to  him. 

To  the  real  student,  who  is  after  thought  in- 
stead of  great  names,  it  makes  little  difference 
who  wrote  them;  they  contain  many  good 
things.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  al^'iost 
universally  acknowdedged  by  scholars  to  be  a 
second  or  tliird  century  production,  contains 
some  as  good  things  as  can  be  found  in  Romans 
or  either  of  the  letters  to  the  Corinthians. 

Even  if  Paxd  did  write  all  the  Epistles  which 
have  come  down  to  us  as  his,  they  contain 
things  which  originated  in  no  higher  source 
than  his  own  brain.  Paul  says  in  I.  Cor. 
vii.  6,  that  he  speaks  by  permission,  and  not  by 
commandment;  and  in  verse  11  he  says:  *'But 
to  the  rest  speak  I,  not  the  Lord." 

Tliere  were  many  things,  as  we  have  shown, 
which  prove  that  the  apostles  were  not  so  in- 
spired as  to  "see  eye  to  eye."  Galatians  is  one 
of  the  books  which  was  undoubtedly  written 
by  Paul.  It  shows  that  the  apostles  were  not 
so  inspired  as  to  agree  in  doctrine  or  practice. 
In  the  second  chapter  of  this  book,  Paul  classes 
Peter  among  ''false  brethren;"  and  adds,  *'I  gave 
place,  by  subjection,  no,  not  for  an  hour.     **Gal. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.  305 

ii.  4,  5.  He  goes  on  in  this  chapter  to  talk 
about  ''James,  Cephas  and  John."  Finally  in 
verses  11-15  he  says: 

"But  when  Peter  was  come  to  Antiocli,  I  withstood 
him  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed.  For 
before  that  certain  came  from  James,  he  did  eat  with 
the  Gentiles;  but  when  they  were  come  he  withdrew 
and  separated  himself,  fearing  them  which  were  of  the 
circumcision.  And  the  other  Jews  dissembled  hkewise 
with  him;  insomuch  that  Barnabas  also  was  carried 
away  with  their  dissimidation.  But  when  I  saw  that 
they  walked  not  uprightly  according  to  the  truth  of  the 
gospel,  I  said  unto  Peter  before  them  all,  if  thou  be- 
ing a  Jew,  livest  after  the  manner  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
not  as  do  the  Jews,  why  compellest  thou  the  Gentiies^ 
to  live  as  do  the  Jews?^' 

All  of  this  goes  to  prove  that  their  inspiration 
did  not  guide  them  infallibly,  nor  in  the  same 
groove.  Each  writer  wrote  from  his  own  stand- 
point. 

Let  us  now  notice 

THE  BOOK  OF  ROMANS. 

This  is,  perhaps,  Paul's  greatest  Epistle;  and 
there  are  in  it  man3^  things  which  justify  the 
writer  of  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter  in  saying 
that  he  wrote  "many  things  hard  to  be  under- 
stood."   See  II  Pet. 'iii.  15,  16. 

Paul's  letters  were  generally  written  ta 
churches  where  he  was  acquainted,  and  had 
preached.  This  book,  however,  is  an  exception. 
He  had  as  yet,  never  seen  Rome.    See  Ko.  i.  13, 

Tjus  letter  is  properly  divided  into  three  parts. 
Chapter  i.  to  viii.  comments  on  the  law,  and  sets 


306     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CiaTICISM. 

forth  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 
These  chapters  refer  more  fully  than  any  other 
portions  of  the  Bible  to  the  old  idea  of  death 
by  sin,  and  salvation  by  grace.  "Where  sin 
abounded  grace  did  much  more  abound."  See 
V.  20.  In  verse  17,  of  chapter  vi,  King  James* 
version  makes  Paul  say:  "But  God  be  thanked, 
that  Y€:  were  the  servants  of  sin,  but  ye  have 
obeyed  from  the  heart  that  form  of  doctrine 
which  was  delivered  unto  you." 

It  seems  strange  that  Paul  would  thank  God 
that  the  Romans  had  been  sinners;  but  it  was 
in  order  to  illustrate  the  grace  of  God.  The  re- 
vised version  softens  that  somewhat  by  saying: 
^'But  God  be  thanked  that  whereas  ye  were  the 
servants  of  sin  ye  became  obedient."  etc. 

Chapters  ix  and  xi,  inclusive,  constitute  a 
commentary  on  the  old  system;  he  tries  to  recon- 
cile the  fall  and  rise  of  many  in  Israel  with  the 
goodness  and  mercy  of  God.  He  shows  that 
they  are  not  all  Israel  that  are  of  Israel;  and 
that  blindness  hath  happened  to  Israel  in  part 
until  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  hath  come  in. 
His  arguments  in  these  chapters  are  more  subtle 
than  can  be  found  elsewhere  in  the  Bible. 

Chapters  xii  to  xvi  consist  mainly  of  exhorta- 
tions. Chapter  xii  is  one  of  the  finest  exhorta- 
tions and  contains  the  finest  system  of  ethics 
that  can  be  found  in  our  language.  Every 
reader  of  this  book  is  asked  to  commit  this 
chapter  to  memory,  to  practice  its  admonitions 
and  to  repeat  them  to  others.  A  beautiful  argu- 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.  307 

ment  for  tlie  perpetuity  of  spiritual  gifts  is 
found  in  this  chapter,  which,  owing  to  the  pre*- 
vaiHng   infidelity  on    that  question  I  will  quote; 

Verses  6-8  read  as  follows: 

"Having  then  gifts  differing  according  to  the  grace 
that  is  given  unto  ns,  whether  prophecy,  .et  tis  proph- 
ecy according  to  the  proportion  of  faith;  or  ministry 
let  us  wait  on  our  ministering;  or  he  that  teacheth  on 
teaching;  or  he  that  exhorteth  on  exhortation;  he  that 
giveth  let  him  do  it  with  simplicity;  he  that  ruleth, 
with  dilhgence;  he  that  showeth  mercy,  with  cheerful- 
ness." 

Here  among  the  especial  gifts,  bestowed  not 
merely  upon  the  apostles,  but  on  the  whole 
church,  are  prophecy,  ministry,  teaching,  exhor- 
tation, giving  and  ruling.  Most  of  the  biblical 
expositors  of  today  acknowledge  that  many  of 
these  are  in  the  church  today.  I  would  like  to 
ask  by  what  authority  they  have  teachers, 
preachers  and  exhorters  today,  and  yet  refuse 
to  allow  that  there  can  be  prophets  and  heal- 
ers? Who  has  the  authority  to  separate  these 
gifts;  to  welcome  one  of  them,  and  to  say  to 
another,  **thus  far  shalt  thou  go,  and  no  far- 
ther? 

I  believe  the  * 'gifts"  spoken  of  above  belong 
alike  to  every  age  of  the  world,  that  giving  and 
ruling  are  spiritual  gifts  as  much  as  prophesy- 
ing. *'He  that  giveth  let  him  do  it  with  sim- 
plicity." That  is,  with  liberality.  That  is  the 
meaning  of  the  word. 

Each  one  is  urged  to  cultivate  the  gift  that 
is  developed    in   himself;    no    one    should    try  to 


308     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

usurp  the  place  of  another;  and  each  department 
of  the  work  should  be  regarded  ,  as  equally 
lionorable. 

A  digest  of  Paul's  statement  of  the  kind  of 
life  that  he  advises  in  order  to  enjoy  the  results 
of  these  gifts,  as  given  in  chapter  twelve,  thir- 
teen and  fourteen  might  be  summed  up  as  fol- 
lows: 

1.  It  is  but  a  reasonable  service  for  them  to 
each  ofter  his  body,  his  life,  his  all,  in  the  cause 
he  loves. 

2.  Such  persons,  having  given  up  all,  should 
tiot  conform  to  the  fashions  and  follies  of  this 
world,  but  should  be  transformed  by  the  renew- 
ing of  their  minds;  that  is,  they  should  reach 
beyond  mere  worldly  dress,  pleasure  and  appe- 
tites— they  should  have  in  their  lives  this  con- 
tinuous stream  of  inspiration,  which  he  calls 
'''the  renewing  of  the  mind." 

3.  Everv'  one  is  admonished  to  conquer  pride; 
not  to  think  more  highly  of  himself  than  he 
ought  to  think;  each  should  regard  himself  as 
only  a  steward  over  what  he  may  have  of  tal- 
ent or  worldly  possession. 

4?.  In  showing  that  every  member  of  the  body 
IS  useful,  Paul  shows  that  every  person  has  a 
olace  to  fill  which  is  peculiar  to  himself. 

5.  Then  follows  his  argument  on  gifts,  as 
quoted  above.    - 

6.  He  next  pleads  with  them  to  let  love  be 
-without  dissimulation,  or  hypocrisy.  He  urges 
them  to  ''be  not  slothful  in  business,"  but  to  be 


THE  EPISTLE  TO   THE  ROMANS.  309 

* 'fervent  in  spirit,  rejoicing  in  hope,  patient  in 
tribulation,  continuing  instant,  or  constant  in 
pra3'er." 

7.  He  wants  them  to  distribute  of  their 
worldly  goods  to  those  who  need;  to  be  given 
to  hospitality^,  to  bless  even  those  who  persecute 
them;  to  bless  and  curse  not;  to  rejoice  and 
weep  with  others;  to  condescend  to  men  of  low 
estate;  to  alwa3"s  recompense  good  for  evil;  to* 
try  to  live  peacefully  with  all  men. 

8.  In  order  to  do  this  he  urges  them  to  not 
retaliate,  or  to  take  vengeance  on  enemies,  but 
to  "heap  coals  of  fire  on  their  head"  by  feeding 
them  if  they  are  hungry,  and  giving  them  drink 
if  thirsty. 

9.  He  next  exhorts  them  to  be  submissive  to- 
the  powers  that  be;  to  pay  their  tribute  or  tax; 
to  honor  wherever  honor  is  due,  and  to  owe  no 
man  anything. 

10.  He  argues  that  love  never  works  ill,  but 
rather  fulfills  the  law;  they  should  walk  hon- 
estly, and  refrain  from  rioting  and  drunkenness. 

11.  He  admonishes  them  to  receive  those  wha 
have  but  little  faith,  but  not  to  doubtful  disputa- 
tions; that  is,  not  receive  them  with  the  idea  of 
disputing  with  them  with  regard  to  their  faiths 
oi*  lack  of  faith;  to  throw  away  superstitions 
about  eating  and  drinking;  esteeming  one  day 
above  another,  or  every  day  alike.  He  Welshes 
everyone  to  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind 
— have  no  controversy  over  such  matters. 

12.  He   concludes   by  urging   his   brethren  to 


310     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

follow  after  the  things  which  make  for  peace. 

I  must  again  say,  no  matter  who  wrote  this 
book,  the  ethical  parts  of  it  if  studied  and  car- 
ried out  in  every  day  life,  will  elevate  the  one 
w^ho  thus  practices,  beyond  those  who  do  not 
thus  live. 

The  Epistle  proper  is  supposed  to  end  with 
chapter  fifteen.  Chapter  sixteen  is  generally  re- 
garded as  the  work  of  a  later  writer.  It  does 
not  read  at  all  like  the  former  chapters.  Indeed 
the  persons  named  in  this  chapter  did  not  be- 
long in  Rome— probably  never  saw  the  "seven 
hilled  city."  Many  have,  with  good  reason  sup- 
posed that  this  chapter  should  have  been  the 
closing,  p^.rt  of  the  Book  of  Ephesians. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

r'mST  AND    SECOND    CORINTHIANS. 

Three  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians — Dirisions  in  the  Chnrch — 
Corinthians  Slack  in  Morals — Paul's  Idea  of  Freedom — 
Paul  on  the  Woman  Question — Chapters  Twelve,  Thir- 
teen and  Fourteen  to  l>c  Read  Together — Argument  on 
the  Resurrection  of  Jesus — His  Evidence — The  Logical 
Sequence — Baptized  for  the  Dead — We  Shall  not  all  Sleep 
— A  few  Words  from  Dr.  Peebles — Whr  Second  Corin- 
thians Was  Written— Wants  the  Incestuous  Man  Restor- 
ed to  the  Church — His  Belief  in  the  Unseen — Exhortation 
to  Bodilv  and  Spiritunl  Cleanliness — Exhorts  to  Cheerfal 
Giving — Renews  his  Quarrel  with  the  Other  Apostles— 
Accnscs  Them  of  Being  False  Apostles — Deceitful  Work- 
ers— Paul's  Pedigree — Spiritual  Introniissiotu 

This  is  called  ''The  First  Epistle  of  Paul  the 
Apostle  to  the  Corinthians;"  but  it  is  not  the 
first.  It  is  the  first  we  have,  but  not  the 
first  he  wrote.  In  the  fifth  chapter  of 
this  Epistle,  verse  13,  he  says:  **I  wrote  un- 
to you  in  an  Epistle  not  to  keep  company  with 
fornicators."  This  is  proof  positive  that  at 
lea,st  one  Epistle  was  written  to  the  Corinth- 
ians before  this  one.  That  this  Epistle  was  lost 
does  not  harmonize  very  well  with  the  idea  that 


312     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM 

the  BUAq  was  miraculously  preserved,  as  many 
of  our  creeds  say. 

The  letter  under  consideration  is  supposed  to 
liave  been  written  at  Ephesus,  about  A.  D.  57, 
or  58. 

This  Epistle  seems  to  have  been  written  main- 
13^  because  of  certain  reports  brought  to  Paul 
of  divisions  in  the  church.  Also  that  the  system 
of  etliics  practiced  by  the  Corinthian  church  was 
not  of  the  highest  t3q3e.  It  seems  that  there 
were  at  least  four  divisions  in  the  church.  One 
party  said,  "I  am  of  Paul,"  another,  "I  am  of 
Apollos,"  another,  "I  am  of  Cephas,"  and  still 
anotlier,  "I  am  of  Christ." 

Paul  tries,  in  this  letter,  to  shame  them  out 
of  these  ideas,  and  to  restore  harmony-.  I  gather 
from  his  next  letter  to  this  people  that  in  this 
he^  was  successful. 

Next,  he  finds  much  fault  with  the  .  morals  of 
this  pcvople.  He  tells  of  reports  of  v^orse  crimes 
anions^  them  than  was  mentioned  amono"  the 
Gentiles.  One  man  among  them  had  his  father's 
wife,  and  the  others  seemed  to  be  rather  glad 
of  it  than  otherwise.  All  this  was  done  in  di- 
rect opposition  to  his  te.aching  in  a  former  let- 
ter. He  now  draws  the  lines  a  little  tighter 
than  he  had  ever  done  before.    In  v.  11,  he  sa^^s: 

"But  now  I  have  written  unto  you  not  to  keep  com- 
pany, if  any  man  that  is  called  a  brother  be  a  forni- 
cator, or  covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or  a  railer,  or  a  drunk- 
ard or  an  extortioner;  with  such  an  one  not  to  eat." 

In  the  next  two  chapters  he  talks  of  the  mar- 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  CORINTHIANS.  313 

riage  relation  and  the  duty  of  husbands  and 
wives  to  each  other.  On  the  whole  he  has 
rather  a  crude  opinion  of  marriage,  and  especi- 
idly  of  the  reasons  why  men  should  marry.  See 
especially  vii.  7-9.  In  this,  however,  he  admits 
tliat  it  was  himself  that  was  talking,  and  not 
the  Lord. 

The  instruction  in  this  book,  on  eating  and 
drinking  is,  to  go  with  the  crowd,  but  not  to 
use  this  liberty  as  a  stumbling  block  to  the 
weak.  In  fact,  he  thought  it  best  to,  in  every- 
thing, be  as  3'ielding  as  possible  to  the  senti- 
ments of  others. 

His  doctrine  is  that  no  one  should  cross  any 
other  in  nonessentials.  In  this  I  cannot  sa^^  that 
he  was  wrong. 

In  chapter  ix.  19-22,  he  says: 

"For  though  I  be  free  from  all  men,  yet  have  I 
made  m\'self  servant  to  all,  that  I  might  gain  the 
more.  And  unto  the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  I 
might  gain  the  Jews;  to  them  that  are  under  the  law, 
as  under  the  law,  that  I  might  gain  them  that  are 
under  the  law;  to  them  that  are  without  law,  as 
without  law,  (being  not  without  law  to  God, 
but  under  the  law  to  Christ)  that  I  might  gain  them 
that  are  without  law.  To  the  weak  became  I  as 
weak,  that  I  might  gain  the  weak;  I  am  made  all 
things  to  all  men  that  I  might  by  all  means  save 
some." 

In  chapter  ten  he  holds  the  ancient  Jews  up 
as  a  kind  of  example.  He  draws  lessons  from 
both  their  good  deeds  and  their  mistakes.  Verse 
24,  has    by  certain  LiberaHsts    and  Spiritualists 


314     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

been  wrongly  interpreted.  "Let  no  man  seek 
his  OMvn,  but  every  man  his  brother's 
wealth."  This  do^  not  mean,  as  has  been  in- 
terpreted, let  every  man  seek  to  rob  his  brother; 
bttt  let  every  one  look  out  for  the  good  of  oth- 
ers. It  is  an  expression  of  true  brotherly  affec- 
tion. The  Revised  Version  makes  it  plainer.  It 
says:  "Let  no  man  seek  his  own,  but  each  his 
neighbor's  good." 

After  this  he  again  takes  up  lil>erty  on  the  eat- 
ing and  drinking  question.  This  seems  to  be  a 
theme  on  which  the3^  had  some  trouble  and  dis- 
cussion. He  re-states  in  substance  what  he  had 
said  in  a  former  chapter.  In  chapter  eleven  he 
undertakes  to  show  the  superiority  of  man  over 
^sroman,  and  as  such  man  must  assert  his  au- 
thority and  woman  must  allow  man  to  be  the 
head.  She  must  wear  long  hair  as  a  kind  of 
badge  of  subjection.  At  the  same  time  he  thinks 
it  is  a  shame  and  a  disgrace  for  man  to  wear 
long  hair.  His  ideas  may  have  been  adapted  to 
that  age  of  the  world,  but  the  world  has  so  far 
departed  from  the  inspirations  of  this  writer 
that  he  would  stand  higher  in  the  estimation  of 
many  if  he  had  not  said  anything  on  that  ques- 
tion. 

In  this  chapter  Paul  also  show^  that  the 
Christians  of  that  day  were  not  all  paragons  of 
perfection.  Some  of  them  even  went  so  far  as 
to  get  intoxicated  at  the  communion  table.  Read 
Terscs  17-22. 

In  chapters  twelve,  thirteen  and  fourteen  Paul 


FLRST  AND   SECOND  CORINTHIANS.  315 

talks  sensibly  of  the  spiritual  gifts,  and  of  char- 
ity. Really  the  whole  subject  is  spiritual  gifts. 
Chapter  thirteen  is  throwni  in  as  a  kind  of  chain 
to  bind  chapters  twelve  and  fourteen  together. 
In  chapter  twelve  he  shows  what  the  gifts  are, 
and  their .  importance,  and  winds  up  by  exhort- 
ing them  to  covet  them;  and  adds:  **Yet  show 
I  unto  you  a  more  excellent  way." 

Chapter  thirteen  is  devoted  to  the  subject  of 
charity,  or  love.  He  shows  that,  as  important 
as  the  gifts  are;  or  I  will  say,  as  important  as 
mediumship  is,  it  is  worthless  without  that 
charit^^  which  "thinketh  no  evil," — that  the  time 
may  come  and  will  in  the  life  of  every  one  when 
he  will  need  no  more  of  the  other  gifts,  yet 
*  'charity  never  faile th . ' ' 

Then  chapter  fourteen,  after  exhorting  them 
to  ''follow  after  charity,'*  again  urges  them  to 
"desire  spiritual  gifts." 

Chapter  fifteen  is  a  dissertation  on  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus,  and  the  lesson  his  resurrection 
gives  us  concerning  the  resurrection  of  all.  In 
this  chapter  Paul  thoroughly  meets  the  doctrine 
of  the  Epicureans  and  other  materialists,  that 
death  ends  all. 

Paul's  argument  is  so  much  like  the  argument 
for  Modern  Spiritualism  that  I  am  tempted  to 
give  a  brief  digest  of  it.  The  apostle  begins  by 
reminding  the  Corinthians  of  what  he  iiad 
preached  to  them,  that  is,  that  Jesus  had  been 
killed,  but  the  killing  of  him  had  resulted   m  no 


316     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

injury,  as  he  was    seen    alive    many  times  after- 
wards. 

He  then  presents  the  names  of  witnesses  who 
had  testified  that  they  had  seen  him  aUve  after 
his  death.  After  mentioning  Cephas  and  James^ 
he  mentions  ''all  the  Apostles,"  as  witnesses;  and 
then  says,  "he  was  seen  by  over  five  hundred  at 
one  time,  of  whom  some  had  fallen  asleep."  Af- 
ter all  this,  he  himself  had  seen  him. 
'This  really  ends  this  statement  of  the  facts  on 
which  to  base  his  argument.  In  verse  twelve 
he  begins  his  argument,  with  the  question,  "Now 
if  Christ  be  preached  that  he  rose  from  the  dead, 
how  say  some  among  jon  that  there  is  no  res- 
urrection from  the  dead." 

The  whole  argument  amounts  to  this:  In  de- 
nying the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  that  is, 
out  of  the  dead, — that  word  ek  signifies  out  of— 
you  deny  that  Christ  was  raised;  and  when  you 
deny  that  Christ  was  raised  you  call  in  question 
the  word  of  more  than  five  hundred  witnesses 
who  testify  that  they  saw  him;  you  thus  place 
it  beyond  the  power  of  human  testimony  to 
prove  any  fact;  you  question  a  fact  proved  by 
more  than  five  hundred  witnesses. 

The  thing  thus  proved  is  a  fact  unless  these 
people  have  testified  to  a  falsehood;  but  that 
was  out  of  the  question,  for,  while  there  are 
liars  in  the  world  people  seldom  lie  without  a 
motive.  He  then  shows  that  these  witnesses 
could  have  no  possible  motive  to  teU  a  falsehood. 
^'We  are  of  all  men  the  most  miserable."    Abet- 


FIRST  AND   SECOND   CORINTHIANS.  317 

ter  rendering  would  be  as  the  Revised  Version 
has  it,  "We  are  of  all  men  most  i)itiable." 

The  reason  he  gives  for  this  is,  their  suflferings. 
They  had  been  compelled  to  fight  with  wild 
beasts  at  Ephesus — not  for  an  opinion — but  for 
their  testimony  as  to  what  they  had  seen. 

Having  thus  settled  the  question  of  Jesus' 
resurrection  from,  or  out  of  the  dead,  he  argues 
from  that  and  logically  too,  that  all  shall  like- 
wise rise  out  of  the  dead.  Jesus  is  the  "first- 
fruits  of  them  that  slept."  Not  that  Jesus  was 
the  first  one  who  ever  rose  out  of  his  body,  but 
that  he  showed  himself  alive,  as  a  sample,  that 
is  the  meaning  of  the  words  firstfruits.  The  ones 
now  dead  were  sampled  when  Jesus  showed  him- 
self alive. 

In  verse  29  he  says:  "Else  what  shall  th<"y  do 
that  are  baptized  for  the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise 
not  at  all?  Why  are  they  then  baptized  for  the 
dead?" 

The  proper  rendering  would  be:  "Why  are 
they  then  baptized  for  the  dead,  if  the  dead  are 
not  risen?"  The  Revised  Version  and  other  Ver- 
sions so  render  it.  I  have  never  yet  examined  a 
commentary  on  this  text  that  satisfied  its  own 
author.  The  Comprehensive  Commentary  be- 
gins by  calling  it  "an  obscure  passage,"  and, 
after  several  hundred  weary  words  about  the 
matter,  winds  up  by  saying:  "If  we  do  not  un- 
derstand thia  passage  undoubtedly  the  Corin- 
thians did." 

If  this  were   the   proper   place    I  wotild  prove 


318      THE   BIBLE  AND   THE   HIGHER   CRITIC iSM. 

that  baptisin  in  Bible-making  times  was  always 
for  spiritiici.i,  or  mediumistic  development.  Thus 
they  were  baptized  on  purpose  to  bring  them 
into  communion  with  those  whom  the  world 
called  dead. 

Paul  next  tells  of  their  standing  in  jeopardy 
QYQvy  hour  for  their  testimony,  and  asks  why 
they  should  thus  expose  their  lives  if  the  thing 
they  were  telling  is  not  true.  In  most  of  the 
places  where  we  read,  ''if  the  dead  rise  not," 
and  other  similar  expressions,  the  text  should 
read:     "if  the  dead  are  not  raised." 

Paul  next  argues  that  the  body  which  is  sown, 
that  is,  the  fleshy  body,  *is  not  raised.  He  then 
speaks  of  the  different  conditions  in  the  resur- 
rection state.  After  that  he  argues  that  "flesh 
and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God 
neither  doth  corruption  inherit  incorruption." 

The  text  which  says  "we  shall  not  all  sleep, 
but  we  shall  all  be  changed,  in  a  moment,  in 
the  twinkling  of  an  eye,"  was  most  beautifully 
illustrated  in  the  case  of  the  resurrection  of  that 
grand    old    Quaker   reformer,    Isaac   T.  Hopper. 

Dr.  J.  M.  Peebles,  in  his  Better  Life  relates 
the  matter  as  follows: 

"It  is  related  of  Isaac  T.  Hopper,  the  well  known 
Philadelphia  Quaker  aboHtionist,  that  at  4  o'clock 
Judge  Edmonds  bade  him  farewell,  and  at  7  o'clock 
the  same  evening,  three  hours  after,  Hopper  came  a,id 
controlled  the  judge's  daughter  and  said:  'Now  I 
know  what  Paul  meant  when  he  said  we  shall  not  all 
sleep  but  shall  be  changed.  I  did  not  sleep;  I  never 
lost  consciousness  for  a  moment.' 


FIRST  AND   SECOXD   CORIXTIJIAXS.  319 

"The  above  reference  to  Isaac  T.  Hopper  was  pub- 
lished by  me  a  number  of  j'ears  ago;  Judge  Edmonds 
relating  to  me  the  circumstances  personally. 

"The  occurrence  transpired  in  one  of  Judge  Edmonds' 
Thursday  evening  seances.  His  daughter  Laura  was 
the  writing  medium  in  this  seance.  Hopper,  only  a 
few  hours  in  spirit  life,  wrote: — 'I  am  in  the  spirit 
world,'  signing  it  *I.  T.  H.'  'Who  is  that  for?'  was 
the  inquiry.  All  present  were  puzzled.  The  judge, 
looking  at  the  communication  the  second  time,  re- 
marked:— 'Why,  those  are  the  initials  of  Isaac  T.  Hop- 
per; but  that  cannot  be,  as  I  was  there  this  ciftev- 
noon,  finding  him  feeble,  but  as  comfortable  as  I  ex- 
pected. I  will  test  the  matter.'  The  judge,  throwing 
on  his  cloak,  was  soon  at  the  Hopper  residence,  where 
he  found  his  friend's  body  slumbering  in  death. 

"The  judge,  returning  to  his  residence,  and  the 
seance  reopened  bj--  a  short  prayer.  Hopper  again 
wrote:  'I  am  in  the  spirit  world  and  I  now  under- 
stand what  the  apostle  meant  when  he  said,  w^e 
shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  chan;[;ed.  I 
have  not  slept,  I  w^as  not  unconscious  for  a  moment, 
only  a  little  dazed  by  the  event  called  death;  b^t  I've 
been  changed,  or  have  changed  worlds.  I  have  met 
my  companion  and  friends,  many  of  whom  I  knew.  Oh, 
it  is  blessed.'  This  fact  establishes  Hopper's  contin- 
uity of  consciousness,  identity  and  memor>'." 

Chapter  sixteen  provides  for  the  collection  for 
the  poor  saints,  and  promises  that  when  he 
passes  through  Macedonia,  he  will  call  and  see 
them,  and  possibly  spend  the  winter  with  them. 
He  recommends  two  younger  ministers  Timo- 
theus  and  Apollos  to  them.    He  .skives  them  some 


320     THE   BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

words  of  exhortation,  and  finally  with  his  own 
hand  attaches  his  signature. 

SECOND  CORINTHIANS. 

In  his  former  letter  we  found  Paul  was  going 
to  Macedonia.  When  he  got  there  he  learned 
something  of  the  effect  his  former  letter  had  on 
the  Corinthians;  and  so  he  wrote  this  letter 
partly  to  cheer  and  comfort  his  brethren.  This 
was  only  a  few  months  after  the  writing  of  the 
former  letter. 

The  first  letter  seemed  very  bitter  in  places; 
in  this  he  explains  the  cause.  That  letter,  per- 
haps, led  them  to  withdraw  their  fellowship 
from  the  man  who  had  his  father's  wife.  Paul's 
sympathy  is  now  drawn  out  to  the  poor  fellow. 
He  tells  them  that  he  has  suffered  enough,  and 
that  now  it  is  their  duty  to  forgive  him,  "lest 
he  should  be  swallowed  up  of  overmuch  sor- 
row." He-  pleads  with  them  to  "confirm  their 
love  toward  him."    See  chapter  ii.  6-8. 

In  the  third  chapter  he  reminds  them  that  they 
are  his  Epistles — "known  and  read  of  all  men." 
He  then  contrasts  the  spiritual  dispensation  with 
former  dispensations.  He  tells  of  the  blinding  of 
the  minds  of  the  Jews  for  a  purpose. 

In  the  next  chapter  he  rejoices  that  they  haA^e 
"renounced  the  hidden  things  of  dishonestj^," 
and  that  they  have  commended  themselves  to 
the  consciences  of  the  people  among  whom  they 
live. 

His    paramount    belief  in    spirituality— in    the 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  CORINTHIANS.  321 

realitj^  and  the  permanency  of  unseen  things,  and 
in  the  eternal,  and  in  the  fact  that  we  shall  en- 
joy them  after  *'our  earthly  house  of  this  taber- 
nacle shall  have  been  dissolved,"  is  fully  express- 
ed in  the  last  three  verses  of  this  chapter  and 
the  first  eight  verses  of  chapter  five. 

In  the  first  part  of  chapter  six  he  tells  of  his 
sufferings — his  stripes,  imprisonments,  tumults, 
labors,  v^^atchings  and  long  suffering  for  the 
cause  he  loved. 

In  the  latter  part  of  this  chapter  he  exhorts 
his  brethren  again  to  purity  of  life.  Inasmuch 
as  they  are  the  temple  of  the  living  God  he  pleads 
with  them  to  separate  themselves  from  every- 
body and  ever3'thing  w^hich  is  unclean. 

Chapter  seven  opens  with  the  same  kind  of  ex- 
hortation to  "cleanse  themselves  from  all  filthi- 
ness  of  the  flesh  and  spirit."  He  tells  them  again 
that  his  former  letter  caused  them  sorrow,  and 
that  very  sorrow  had  made  them  better  men 
and  women;  and  that  he  had  written  for  the 
benefit  of  the  one  w^ho  had  done  the  wrong. 

Chapters  eight  and  nine  are  in  the  main  exhor- 
tations to  generosity — exhortations  which  it 
would  be  well  for  Spiritualists  of  today  to  foUow. 
In  chapter  xi.  6-9  he  says: 

"But  this  I  say,  be  which  soweth  sparingly  shall 
reap  also  sparingly;  and  he  which  soweth  bountifully 
shall  also  reap  bountifully.  Every  man  according  as 
he  purposeth  in  his  heart,  so  let  him  give;  not  grudg- 
ingly, or  of  necessity;  for  God  loveth  a  cheerful  giver. 
And  God  is  able   to    make   all   grace   abound  toward 


322     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

you;   tliat  ye,  always    having    strfficiency  in  all  tilings, 
may  abound  to  every  good  work." 

In  chapter  ten  begins  the  real  warfare — the 
point  in  which  he  was  evidently  more  interested 
than  he  was  in  anything  he  ever  wrote.  Paul 
and  some  of  the  other  Apostles  had  no  love  for 
each  other,  and  it  crops  out  in  Paul's  writings. 
It  seems  that  some  of  the  Apostles  had  denied 
PatiVs  Apostleship.  This  struck  him  in  a  vital 
place.  He  talks  about  "casting  down  imagina- 
tions, and  every  high  thing  that  exalteth  itself.'* 
He  begs  that  his  brethren  will  not  look  on  things 
after  the  outward  appeara^nce,  for  outward  ap- 
pearance was  really  against  him;  he  had  not 
known  Jesus  during  his  life — had  persecuted  his 
followers  and  done  many  things  which  rendered 
him  somewhat  unpopular;  now  with  his  anti- 
Jewish  sentiments,  to  lay  claim  to  being  an 
Apostle  v/as  more  than  his  fellow  Apostles  were 
willing  to  endure. 

He  gives  his  Corinthian  brethren  to  under- 
stand that  he  does  not  boast  of  his  authority^ 
yet  he  has  no  reason  to  be  ashamed  of  it.  He 
said  he  dare-  not  count  himself  as  one  of  the 
number  of  those  who  "compare  themselves  with 
themselves."  He  will  not  boast  of  things  be- 
yond his  measure,  nor  stretch  himself  beyond 
his  measure. 

He  finally  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  he  sup- 
posed he  was  not  a  whit  behind  the  very  chief- 
est  of  the  Apostles.  He  acknowledged  that  he 
was  rude  in  his  speech,  but  not  in  knowledge. 


FIRST  AND  SECOND   CORINTHIANS.  323 

He  tells  of  liaving  abused  himself  for  their  ex- 
altation; that  he  was  not  chargeable  to  them; 
that  he  had  robbed  other  churches,  taking 
wages  of  them  in  order  to  do  the  Corinthians 
service.    Finally  in  chapter  xi.  13-14  he  says: 

"For  such  are  fa.lse  Apostles,  deceitful  workers, 
transforming  themselves  into  the  Apostles  of  Christ. 
And  no  marvel;  for  satan  himself  is  transformed  into 
an  angel  of  Light." 

Thtis  does  this  great  Apostle  reveal  some  of 
the  jealousy  brought  out  in  the  examination  of 
the  book  of  Acts.  He  charges  them  again  and 
again  not  to  think  him  a  fool.  He  then  com- 
pares himself  with  the  other  apostles,  and  gives 
his  pedigree  as  follows: 

"Are  they  Hebrews?  so  am  I.  Are  they  Israelites? 
so  am  I.  Are  they  the  seed  of  Abraham?  so  am  I. 
Are  the^^  ministers  of  Christ?  (I  speak  as  a  fool)  I 
am  more;  in  labors  more  abundant,  in  stripes  above 
measure,  in  prisons  more  frequent,  in  deaths  oft;  of 
the  Jews  five  times  received  I  forty  stripes  save  one. 
Thrice  was  I  beaten  with  rods,  once  v/as  I  stoned, 
thrice  I  suffered  shipwreck,  a  night  and  a  day  have  I 
been  in  the  deep;  in  journeyings  often,  in  perils  of 
robbers,  in  perils  by  mine  own  countrymen,  in  perils 
by  the  heathen,  in  perils  in  the  city,  in  perils  in  the 
wilderness,  in  perils  in  the  sea;  in  perils  among  false 
brethren;  in  weariness  and  painfulness,  in  watchings 
often,  in  hunger  and  thirst,  in  fastings  often,  in  cold 
and  nakedness,  beside  those  things  which  are  without 
that  which  cometh  upon  me  daily,  the  care  of  all  the 
churches."    Verses  22-28. 

In  the  twelfth  chapter  he  tells  of  a  wonderful 


324     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

vision  he  had,  in  'which  he  was  intromitted  into 
paradise.  This  was  so  real  that  he  could  not 
tell  whether  he  was  taken  up  bodily,  or  whether 
he  was  taken  out  of  the  body;  of  one  thing  he 
was  sure,  he  heard  words  impossible  of  utter^ 
ancc  by  mortals. 

He  also  tells  of  a  * 'thorn  in  the  flesh,"  which 
he  thinks  was  given  him  to  keep  him  from  be- 
ing too  much  exalted  because  of  his  revelations. 

In  the  closing  chapter  is  an  exhortation  which 
is  good  almost  anywhere. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE  OTHER  SUPPOSED  EPISTLES  OF  PAUL. 

Galatians  Certainly  Paul's  Letter— The  Aftermath  of  the 
Conference  in  Acts  xv— A  Conflict  with  the  Jerusalem 
Apostles— Paul  Not  Ordained  by  Men— Paul  States  the 
Issues  Between  Others  and  Himself^Names  James,  Ce- 
phas and  John  as  "False  Brethren"— Paul  Brings  Serious 
Charges  Against  Peter — Hagar  and  the  Old  Dispensa- 
tion—Ephesians  Not  Written  by  Paul— The  Book  Mis- 
represents Paul— Was  the  Letter  Written  to  the  Ephe- 
sians?— ^Reasons  for  Doubting  that  Paul  Wrote  It — Good 
Things  in  Colossians — Author  Unknow^n — Reasons  Why 
Paul  Could  Not  Have  Written  This  Letter— Thessalon- 
ians  an  Old  Document — Did  Paul  Write  It? — Second  Thes- 
salonians — Perhaps  Post  Pauline — The    Pastoral  Epistles 

^  — Chadwick  on  These  Epistles — Dr.  Davidson's  Opinion — 
Epistle  of  Philemon  Sends  a  Man  Back  to  Slavery-- Who 
Wrote  the  Book  of  Hebrews? — Anti-Pauline— Makes  the 
Old  Typical  of  the  New — Paul  a  Manly  Man — Responsi- 
ble for  the  Spread  of  Christianity. 

We  now  come  to  a  very  brief  examination  of 
the  book  of  Galatians,  which  is  the  only  remain- 
ing book  which  there  is  any  certainty  that  Paul, 
the  Great  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  wrote. 

If  there  was  no  assurance  to  the  contrary  one 
'would  naturally  think  this  was  about  the  first 
Epistle  this  Apostle  wrote  to  a  Christian  church; 


326     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

it  would  also  be  supposed  that  it  followed  very 
soon  after  the  noted  controversy  between  Paul 
and  the  Pe  trine  Apostles,  described  in  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  A.cts.  He  boils  over  with 
this  controversy  and  its  aftermath,  from  start 
to  finish. 

Some  writers,  including  Marcion  in  particular, 
regard  this  as  Paul's  first  Christian  Epistle; 
that  is,  his  first  Epistle  after  he  became  a  Chris- 
tian. Some  one  who  knevv^  little  of  the  facts  in 
the  ca,se,  has  added  a  paragraph  to  each  of  the 
Epistles  telling  where  he  supposed  it  was  writ- 
ten. Althougli  this  sta,tement  is  taken  as  of  the 
same  atithorit}^  as  the  Bible,  it  has  no  authority; 
it  is  simply  a  guess  which 'was  added  at  a  late 
date.  At  the  end.  of  this  Epistle  they  have  said 
in  the  added  paragraph,  that  it  wks  written  at 
Rome,  but  this  is  known  to  be  not  true.  The 
most  reasonable  conclusion  is  that  it  was  writ- 
ten from  Corinth  somewhere  between  the  j-ears 
56  and  58.    That  is  before  Paul  ever  saw  Rome. 

Paul  was  tlie  founder  at  least  of  some  of  the 
churches  in  Galatia,  and  had  afterwards  visited 
them.  The  Jerusalemites,  or  Ebionites  had  sent 
their  emissaries  there  v^ho  had  denied  the  Apos- 
tleship  of  St.  Paul.  This  excited  his  ire  and 
called  out  this  letter.  Paul  had  not  been  or- 
dained, nor  sent  out  by  the  Jerusalem  Apostles, 
and  of  course  they  questioned  his  apostleship. 
He  begins  his  letter  by  practically  disclaiming 
fellowship  with  the  Jerusalem  Apostles.  He 
says: 


THE   OTIIEE   SUPPOSED  EPISTLES  OF   PAUL.    327 

"Paul,  an  apostle,  (not  of  men,  neither  by  man,  but 
b\'  Jesus  Christ,  and  God,  the  Father,  who  raised  him 
from  the  dead;)  and  all  the  brethren  which  are  with 
me,  nnto  the  churches  of  Galatia."    Gal.  i.  1-2. 

Here,  he  is  not  an  apostle  neither  of  man,  nor 
b3^  man,  but  claims  Jesus  Christ  and  God  as  his 
authority',  and  extends  the  greeting  of  the  breth- 
ren only,  who  are  with  him.  He  then  marvels 
that  the  church  is  so  soon  moved  away  from 
his  teachings.  They  had  embraced  "another 
gospel,"  which  he  claimed  was  "not  another," 
but  was  a  per\^ersion  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

He  is  so  thorouglil^^  at  v^^ar  with  the  docrines 
of  the  other  apostles  that  inverses  8,  9,  he  says: 

"But  though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven,  preach 
any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  we  have 
preached  unto  3'ou,  let  him  be  accursed.  As  we  have 
said  before,  so  say  we  now  again,  if  any  man  preach 
any  other  gospel  unto  j^ou  than  that  ye  have  received, 
let  him  be  accursed." 

He  then,  probably  in  answer  to  charges  which 
had  been  made  by  the  Petrine  partv,  goes  on  to 
sa^^  that  his  gospel  was  not  after  man,  for  he 
neither  received  it  from  man;  neither  was  he 
taught  it  but  bj^  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 
That  is,  Jesus  Christ  as  a  spirit  had  taught  him 
and  sent  him  out  to  preach. 

He  next  lets  them  know  that  he  once  en- 
dorsed the  Jews'  religion  and  profited  in  it;  but 
now  from  the  resurrected  Jesus  he  had  learned  a 
better  religion.  He  then  undertook  to  show 
that  the  enemies  to  which  he  referred  as  preach- 
ers of  another  gospel,  or,  as  pre  verting  the  gos- 


328     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

pel  of  Christ,  were  none  other  than  the  other 
apostles.  That  they  opened  war  on  him  he 
proves  by  the  fact  that  he  did  not  go  to  Jeru- 
salem for  three  years,  but  went  to  Arabia  in- 
stead. 

He  had  not  even  visited  any  of  the  churches 
in  Judea.  But  while  he  had  not  disturbed  them, 
he  had  not  sul^mitted  to  them;, "no,  not  for  an 
hour."  Paul  mentions  Peter  and  James  as  be- 
ing two  vvdiom  he  went  to  see  on  the  occasion 
of  his  first  visit  to  Jerusalem — two  of  those  to 
whom  he  would  not  submit;  "no,  not  for  an 
hotir" — two  of  those  who  preached  "another 
gospel,  which  is  not  another;"  but  a  perversion 
of  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

As  Paul  was  recognized  as  a  self-appointed 
apostle,  and  without  reputation,  he  ironically 
spoke  of  "them  which  Vv^ere  of  reputation."  He 
then  told  them  that,  after  fourteen  years  he 
went  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  found  himself  "among 
false  brethren,"  tov^hom  he  "gave  place  by  sub- 
jection, no,  not  for  an  hour."  He  next  charac- 
terizes these  brethren  as  follows: 

"But  of  these  who  seemed  to  be  somewhat,  (whatso- 
ever they  were,  it  maketh  no  matter  to  me;  God  ac- 
cepteth  no  man's  person;)  for  they  who  seemed  to  be 
somewhat  in  conference  added  nothing  to  me."  GaL 
ii.  6. 

Thus  it  is  plain  that  they  "added  nothing"  to 
Paul.  Among  these  he  mentions  by  name, 
"James,  Cephas,  that  is  Peter,  and  John,  wha 
seemed  to  be  pillars." 


THE   OTHER   SLTPOSED   EPISTLES   OF   PAUL.    329 

It  is  perfectly  plain  that  liis  whole  fight 
against  Judaizing  teachers  is  against  those  who 
took  Christianity  as  an  attachment  to  Judaism, 
and  not  against  Jewish  teachers  as  sucli.  In 
Gal.  ii.  11-15  the  matter  is  made  plain  enough 
so  that  I  marvel  how  it  is  that  the  world  has 
been  kept  in  ignorance  so  long.  There  Paul 
says: 

"But  when  Peter  was  come  to  Antiocli,  I  withstood 
him  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed.  For 
before  that  certain  came  from  James  he  did  eat  with 
the  Gentiles;  but  when  they  were  come  he  withdrew 
and  separated  li/mseh',  fearing  them  which  were  of  the 
circumcision.  And  the  other  Jews  dissembled  likewise 
with  him;  insomuch  that  Barnabas  also  was  carried 
away  with  their  dissimulation.  But  when  I  saw  that 
they  walked  not  uprightly  according  to  the  truth  of 
the  gospel,  I  said  unto  Peter  before  them  all,  if  thou, 
being  a  Jew,  livest  after  the  manner  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  not  as  do  the  Jews,  why  compellest  thou  the  gen- 
tiles to  live  as  do  the  Jews?  We  who  are  Jews  by 
nature,  and  not  sinners  of  the  Gentiles,  knowing  that 
a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  but 
by  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  even  we,  who  have  be- 
lived  in  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by 
the  faith  of  Christ,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law, 
for  by  the  works  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified." 

What  can  be  plainer  than  that  Paul's  argu- 
ment in  this  entire  book  was  against  Peter  and 
the  Petrine  Christians?  Peter  and  his  followers 
believed  that  in  order  to  become  a  Christian 
one  must  first  become  a  Jew.  Paul  believed 
that  in  the    new  dispensation    there  was  neither 


330     TFLK    DICLS  AND   THE   lilGliiZR   ClilTICIS^I. 

Jew  nor  Greek,  hence  he  refused  to  have  Titns 
circumcised.  Gah  ii.  3.  Paul  compares  tlie  old 
dispensation  and  the  Jews  to  Ha.gar  and  her 
child.  Hagar  was  the  bondwoman.  The  new 
dispensation  he  compares  to  the  free  woman. 
Then  he  urges  his  Galatian  brethren  to  "stand 
fast  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made 
you  free,  and  be  not  entangled  again  with  the 
yoke  of  bondage."  Gal.  t.  1.  He  then  talks  of 
the  dire  calamities  of  those  who  take  Judaism 
with  its  rites  as  necessary  prerequisites  to  be- 
coming Christians. 

After  this  long  argument,  made  apparently 
to  disabuse  the  minds  of  his  Galatian  brethren, 
he  closes  the  book  with  a  fine  exhortation  and 
a  few  words  of  good  advice. 

The  next  book  to  pass  under  review  is  the 
letter  to  the  Ephesians.  This  book  was  prob- 
ably not  w^ritten  by  the  Apostle  Paul.  The 
reasons  given  by  those  who  contended  for  the 
Pauline  authorship  wall  not  stand  the  test  for 
one  moment.  Critics  are  now  all  coming  to  the 
other  side  of  the  question. 

The  writer  of  this  letter  claims  to  be  a 
stranger  to  those  to  whom  he  wrote,  w^hich 
could  not  have  been  the  case  v/ith  Paul.  Eph. 
i.  15  says; 

"Wherefore  I  also,  after  I  heard  of  your  faith  in  the 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  love  unto  all  the  saints,  cease 
not  to  give  thanks  for  you,  making  mention  of  you  in 
my  prayers." 

Can  this  be  the  language    of  Paul,  who,  if  he 


THE   OTHER   SUPPOSED  EPISTLES  OF  J>AUL.    331 

did  not  found  the  church  at  Ephesus,  cei-tainh', 
if  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  can  be 
beheved,  baptized  the  Ephesian  Christians,  and 
laid  his  hands  on  them  that  they  miglit  receive 
the  Holy  Ghost;  and  after  that  stayed  vv'itli 
them  three  months  and  preached  to  them  until 
he  raised  a  great  turmoil  in  the  citjr,  and  then 
continued  there  as  a  preacher  two  years  after 
the  preaching  which  caused  the  outcrj/,  "great 
is  Dianna  of  the  Ephesians."   See  Acts  xix.  1-10. 

The  only  way  the  weight  of  this  argument  is 
avoided  is  by  the  statement  that  Paul  wrote 
the  letter,  but  there  are  in  it  interpolations;  and 
one  is  the  word  Ephesus,  in  chapter  i.  and 
verse  1,  which  ssljs:  "Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ  by  the  will  of  God,  to  the  saints  v.diich 
are  at  Ephesus,  and  to  the  faithful  scattered 
abroad  "  We  are  told  that  "saints  which  are 
at  Exjhesus,"  should  come  out.  That  Paul  only 
wrote  to  the  "faithful  in  Christ"  Jesus.  The 
words  at  Ephesus  are  w^anting  in  the  oldest 
ma-nuscripts.  This  is  true.  Some  contend  that 
this  Epistle  v/as  written  to  the  Laodiceans; 
others,  that  it  was  a  Catholic  Epistle,  written 
to  all  the  churches  everywhere.:  It  is  true  that 
the  words  "at  Ephesus,"  are  not  in  the  older 
manuscripts,  but  that  fact  does  not  prove  that 
Paul  w^as  the  author  of  the  letter.  In  fact  there 
is  not  a  particle  of  proof  that  Paul  ever  knew 
that  any  such  letter  was  written. 

In  his  "Origin  and  growth  of  the  Bible,"  the 
Rev.  T.  J.  Sunderland    gives    many  cogent    re^s- 


332     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

ons  why  Paul  could  not  have  written  this  let- 
ter. I  abridge  and  slightly  change  and  give 
some  of  them. 

1.  The  Epistle  is  addressed  to  a  Gentile  pub- 
lic. Paul  could  not  have  made  that  mistake  as 
he  himself  had  taken  many  Jews  into  the  church 
at  Ephesus. 

2.  The  Epistle  is  addressed  to  strangers;  the 
-writer  had  no  acquaintance  with  the  Ephesians; 
Paul's  acquaintance  with  them  must  have  been 
intimate  inasmuch  as  he  preached  to  them 
over  two  years. 

3.  The  writer  sends  no  greetings;  Paul  sends 
greetings  in  all  his  letters. 

4.  Paul  was  engaged  in  a  battle  to  gain  a 
place  in  the  church  for  the  Gentiles;  but  this 
Epistle  knows  nothing  of  that;  instead,  it  is  de- 
voted to  a  unity  already  existing.  It  is  a  kind 
of  dissertation  on  God's  plan  for  reaching  and 
saving  the  whole  world,  which  is  contrasted 
with  the  former  division  of  the  world  into  Jews 
and  Gentiles. 

5.  The  writer  of  this  letter  refers  to  the  Apos- 
tles as  a  third  party,  to  which  he  did  not  be- 
long. In  the  real  Pauline  Epistles  he  ever 
claimed  to  be  an  apostle;  **Am  I  not  an  Apostle? 
have  I  not  seen  the  Lord?"" 

6.  The  style  is  not  that  of  Paul;  it  is  an  easy 
flowing  stjde;   Paul's  was  quite  the  reverse. 

I  have  greatly  abridged  and  put  the  reasons 
of  this   learned   man    into    my    own   language; 


THE   OTHER   SUPPOSED  EPISTLES   OF  PAUL.    333 

some  of  them  I  have  omitted  entirel3',  but  here 
are  enough. 

I  do  not  say  the  book  is  not  as  good  in  every 
respect  as  though  Paul  had  written  it;  it  may 
be  better.  Inspiration  belongs  alike  to  all  ages 
and  nations  of  the  world.  I  will  also  add  that 
in  those  da\'s  it  was  not  considered  wrong  for 
one  man  to  write  a  book  and  attach  the  name 
of  another  and  more  popular  writer.  This  is 
done  in  many  of  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament.  This  Epistle  bears  marks  of  having 
been  written  by  a  second  century  Gnostic.  It  is 
not  denied  that  Paul  was  a  Gnostic,  although 
Gnosticism  had  not  developed  in  Paul's  day  to 
what  it  was  a  century  later. 

All  this  proves  that  the  confidence  of  Chris- 
tians has  outrun  their  critical  acumen.  They 
have  taken  much  as  apostolic,  plenary  inspira- 
tion, vvrhich  was  written  by  men  quite  as  falli- 
ble as  themselves.  I  have  not  the  space  to  give 
a  synopsis  of  the  contents  of  this  letter. 

PHILIPPIANS. 

We  next  come  to  the  epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians.  This  is  a  good  book,  no  matter  who 
wrote  it.  It  is  the  shortest  epistle  written  to 
the  church,  in  the  Bible.  Perhaps  it  will  never 
be  known  who  is  the  author.  With  no  other 
reason  than  that  Paul's  name  is  attached  to  it, 
it  has  been  affirmed  that  it  was  written  by 
Paul.  With,  I  think,  as  little  reason  it  is  de- 
nied by  certain    hypercritics.    The  Gnosticism  in 


334  THE  BIBLE  AND   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

this  book  is  the  reason  why  some  deny  the 
Pauline  authorsliip  of  this  letter.  It  must  be 
renieni^;ered  tliat  if  Paul  did  write  this,  he  wrote 
it  in  his  old  age,  after  he  had  ceased  his  war- 
fare "Upon  other  branches  of  the  churches,  and 
after  he  had  become  more  reflective,  and  per- 
haps more  practical  than  he  was  while  in  the 
heat  of  his  controversies. 

Like  the  book  of  Epliesians,  this  book  con- 
tains many  things  worthy  of  the  great  Apostle 
to  the  Gentiles.  Who  ever  wrote  anything  more 
worthy  to  be  set  in  a  gold  frame  than  the  fol- 
lowing? 

"Fina'.lv',  brethren,  whatsoever  things  are  true,  what- 
soever things  are  honest,  whatsoever  things  are  just, 
whatsoever  tilings  are  pure,  whatsoever  things  are 
lovely,  whatsoever  things  are  of  good  report,  if  there 
be  any  virtue,  and  if  there  be  any  praise,  think  on 
these  things."     Phih  iv.  8. 

Whether  Paul  wrote  this  letter  or  not  I  am 
glad  it  was  written. 

•    COLOSSIANS. 

We  next' come  to  the  book  called  Colossians. 
That  book  contains  many  good  things  no  mat- 
ter Yv'iio  v/rote  it.  Others  beside  Paul  could 
write  good  things.  It  is  hardly  thought  possi- 
ble that  Paul  could  have  Vv^'itten  this.  The  fol- 
lowing are  among  the  reasons  why  critics  reject 
its  Pauline  origin. 

1.  It  is  very  similar  to  the  letter  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  which  we  know  Paul  did  not  write. 
Many,  in  fact  all,  think  that  if  it  w?cS  not  vv^ritten 


THE   OTHER   SUPPOSED   EPISTLES   OF  PAUL.    335 

by  the  same  hand  that  wrote  the  letter  to  the 
Ephesians,  it  was  written  with  a  copy  of  that 
letter  before  the  author.  The  writer  of  this 
Epistle  was  evidently  acquainted  with  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Ephesians. 

2.  It  contains  Gnosticisms  which  were  very 
young  in  Paul's  day;  some  saj^  they  were  not 
born  until  after  Paul  had  gone  to  his  fathei .. 
Besides  that,  the  book  smacks  strongly  of  Mon- 
tanism.  Montan,  the  father  of  that  particular 
ism  was  not  born  until  after  the  death  of  Paul. 

3.  There  are  peculiarities  of  style,  and  words 
used  in  this  letter  not  elsewhere  found  in  Paul's 
writings. 

4.  Paul  preached  an  unpopular,  almost  an  un- 
heard of  gospel,  but  the  writer  of  this  preached 
an  old  gospel,  which  they  had  all  heard  before 
he  came  among  them,  and  which  had  been 
* 'preached  to  every  creature  under  the  whole 
heaven,"  and  whereof  the  writer,  w^ho  calls  him- 

.self  Paul,  was  ''made  a  minister."    Col.  i.  23. 

The  man  who  wrote  one  hundred  years  after 
Paul  could  represent  the  gospel  as  being  an  old 
story  when  he  was  made  a  minister.  Paul  could 
hardly  do  that. 

•  Chapters  three  and  four  of  this  letter  contain 
some  old  fashioned  thoughts,  and  some  very  good 
and  practical  advice. 

FIRST  AND  SECOND  THESSALONIANS. 

l\la.nj,  even  among  those  who  criticise  closely, 
suppose    the  First  Epistle    to  the  Thessalonians 


336   THE   BIBLE   AND  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

to  be  genuine,  and  I  am  not  prepared  to  say 
that  it  is  not.  Those  who  regard  It  as  a  gen- 
uine apostolic  doctiment  regard  it,  rightly,  per- 
haps, as  the  first  Christian  letter  that  Paul 
ever  wrote.  More  than  that,  if  it  is,  so  it  is 
thought  to  be,  the  oldest  written  document 
of  Christianit3-,— the  first  thing  written  of  our 
present  New  Testament.  Davidson  and  some 
other  learned  men  regard  Second  Thessalonians 
as  having  been  written  before  the  First.  This 
conclusion  Mr.  Chadwick  thinks  a  reasonable 
one. 

The  balance  of  testimony  seems  to  favor  the 
Pauline  authorship  of  the  First  Epistle,  but  the 
concensus  of  competent  opinion  is  that  Second 
Thessalonians  is  clearly  post  Pauline.  Whoever 
wrote  the  First  Epistle  evidently  expected  in  his 
day  the  event  which  is  now  called  the  second 
advent  of  Christ.  See  I  Thess.  iv.  14-27.  Some 
think  the  second  book  was  w^ritten  as  an  anti- 
dote to  that  idea.    See  II  Thess.  ii.  12. 

The  st^de  of  Second  Thessalonians  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  First  Thessalonians;  3^et  there 
are  places  where  it  seems  that  there  is  an  effort 
to  imitate  the  former  Epistle.  Or  if,  as  some 
say,  the  Second  Epistle  was  written  first,  then  it' 
is  the  First  Epistle  v^hich  tries  to  imitate  the 
Second.  There  are  statements  however,  in  the 
Second  Epistle  which  seem  to  contradict  the 
First.  I  know  of  nothing  by  which  to  definitely 
fix  the  date  of  these    Epistles;    some  make  them 


THE  OTHER  SUPPOSED  EPISTLES  OF   PAUL.    337 

the  earliest  of  Paul's    writings,    and    some    date 
them  in  the  second  century. 

The  next  three  Epistles  are  written  to  Timothy 
and  Titus.  These  are  called  Pastoral  Epistles, 
perhaps  because  they  were  written  to  pastors  of 
churches.  These  letters  contain  much  good  ad- 
vice for  pastors  and  others,  no  matter  who 
wrote  them. 

On  these  Epistles  I  cannot  do  better  than  to 
quote  from  Mr.  Chad  wick.  On  pages  212  and 
213,  of  his  "Bible  of  To-Day"  he  says: 

"The  so-called  Pastoral  Epistles  follow  next  in  our 
New  Testament  order.  These  are  the  two  to  Timothy 
and  the  one  to  Titus.  Their  form  is  that  of  adx^ice 
from  Paul  to  his  disciples  and  companions,  Timothy 
and  Titus,  in  regard  to  their  Ecclesiastical  and  person- 
al conduct.  Their  authenticity  has  been  questioned 
even  by  the  most  conservative  critics.  Neander,  re- 
markable for  his  conservatism,  denies  the  Paufine  au- 
thorship of  First  Timothy.  But  the  three  Epistles 
have  but  one  character,  and  they  must  stand  or  fall 
together.  Davidson,  who  stretches  Iflie  limits  of  Paul- 
ine authorship  to  its  utmost  tension,  so  that  it  in- 
cludes Philippians  and  Colossians.  finds  these  bevond 
its  pale  with  Hebrews  and  Ephesians.  The  date  which 
he  assigns  to  the  three  pastorals  is  about  120  A.  D, 
The  grounds  for  this  conclnsion  are  mainly  that  these 
Bpistles  presuppose  an  ecclesiasticism  much  more  de- 
veloped, as  well  as  certain  controversies,  than  they 
could  have  been  within  the  lifetime  of  the  Apostle. 
The  advice  to  Timothy  and  Titus  would  have  been 
superfluous  considering  Paul's  acquaintance  with  them 
and  the  confidence  he  had  in  them.  Some  of  it 
smacks  of  Polonius    more  than    of   the  Apostle  to  the 


338     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Gentiles.  The  very  passages  that  are  cited  in  proof  of 
Paul's  authorship  are  manifestly  realistic  touches,  in- 
troduced to  create  an  authentic  appearance.  It  will 
be  safe  for  us  to  leave  these  three  Epistles  out  of  the 
account  in  judging  of  Paul's  life  and  thought.  But 
they  are  interesting  memoirs  of  the  ecclesiastical  and 
speculative  notions  which  prevailed  in  the  forepart  of 
the  second  century." 

Mr.  Sunderland,  after  giving  us  a  long  list  of 
atithors  who  deny  the  Pauline  authorship  of 
these  three"  Epistles,  quotes  Dr.  Davidson  as 
follows: 

"We  rest  in  the  conclusion  that  the  author  was  a 
Pauline  Christian  who  lived  at  Rome  in  the  first  part 
of  the  second  century,  and  wished  to  conform  the  in- 
cipient Catholic  Church  in  the  old  paths,  by  exhorta- 
tions to  piety,  and  warnings  against  error.  His  view 
was  polemical  only  in  part.  To  the  growing  dangers 
of  the  time  he  opposed  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  and  a  well  ordered  ecclesiastical  organization. 
^'  *  *  Like  many  others  of  his  daj-,  the  author  chose 
the  name  of  an  apostle  to  give  currency  to  his  senti- 
ments. In  all  this  there  was  no  dishonesty.  The  de- 
vice was  a  harmless  one." 

PHILEMON. 

This  must  end  our  reference  to  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.  The  next  Epistle  is  a  private  letter  to 
a  man  by  the  name  of  Philemon;  it  has  only 
one  short  cha^Dter  and  has  no  business  in  any 
Bible.  The  letter  is  not  of  enough  importance 
to  use  any  space  in  discussing  w^hether  Paul 
was  or  was  not  its  author. 

Since  slaver^^  has  been  abolished  there  is  noth- 
ing left  in  this  letter  that  anybody  thinks  worth 


THE  OTHER  SUPPOSED  EPISTLES   OF   PAUL.    339 

quoting.  In  this  Paul  sends  a  runawa3'  slave 
back  to  his  master  in  direct  violation  of  Deut. 
xxiii.  15,  which  says:  "Thou  shalt  not  deliver 
unto  his  master  the  servant  which  is  escaped 
from  his  master  unto  thee." 

Nobody  knows  when  nor  by  wdiom  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews  was  written;  nor  to  w^hom 
it  was  addressed,  any  further  than  that  it  w^as 
addressed  to  the  Hebrews.  The  first  word  of 
every  one  of  Paul's  real  or  supposed  Epistles  is 
"Paul."  Paul's  name  is  not  in  this  Epistle,  al- 
though it  occurs  in  the  title.  Martin  Luther 
supposed,  and  not  without  reason,  that  it  was 
written  by  Apollos,  to  the  Hebrews  in  Alexan- 
dria, in  Eg3^pt.  I  said  the  word  Paul  is  in  the 
heading  of  this  book;  I  now  add  that  that  was 
not  the  case  in  the  older  manuscripts.  The 
Western  churches  of  the  early  centuries  rejected 
this  book.  Indeed  this  Epistle  bad  a  hard  time 
getting  into  the  Canon;  and  never  did  find  its 
w^ay  there  until  in  the  second  council  of  Car- 
thage, in  the  year  419. 

While  numerous  references  to  the  temple  ser- 
vice, seems  to  indicate  that  it  was  w^ritten  while 
the  temple  was  yet  standing  in  Jerusalem,  and 
perhaps,  while  Paul  was  still  upon  earth,  verse 
three,  of  chapter  tw^o,  indicates  that  Paul  could 
not  have  been  the  w^riter.  That  verse  says: 
"How  shall  we  escape,  if  we  neglect  so  great 
salvation;  which  at  first  began  to  be  spoken  by 
the  Lord  and  was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them 
that  heard  him." 


340     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

The  writer  of  this  got  his  knowledge  from 
those  who  heard  Jesus  preach.  Paul  never  would 
admit  anything  of  the  kind.  He  got  his  knowl- 
edge from  direct  revelation.    Gal.  i.  12. 

The  doctrine  taught  in  this  Epistle  is  more 
like  that  taught  in  the  book  of  Romans  than  it 
is  like  anything  else  in  the  Bible;  yet  the  style  is 
much  smoother  than  is  that  of  Paul.  The  writ- 
er makes  the  whole  Jewish  system  a  type  of  the 
Christian  system.  This  continues  to  chapter  ten, 
verse  nineteen;  from  that  to  the  end  of  the  book 
the  teachings  are  hortatory  or  admonitory, 
rather  than  doctrinal. 

This  brings  us  to  the  end  of  all  the  real  and 
pretended  writings  of  Paul,  the  great  Apostle  to 
the  Gentiles.  I  close  with  a  profound  admiration 
for  the  writings  and  for  the  chara-cter  of  this 
'Great  Apostle.  His  life  as  revealed  in  his  Epis- 
tles, as  unwittingly  told  by  himself,  is  very  differ- 
ent from  that  told  by  the  author  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  near  a  hundred  yeaFS  later.  His 
Avas  a  continuous  warfare  with  opposition  to 
what  he  supposed  to  be  Christianity.  The  prin- 
cipal part  of  that  opposition  came  from  the 
other  apostles. 

The  Romanists  found  their  church  on  Peter. 
As  compared  with  Paul,  they  are  welcome  to 
him.  Paul  was  scholarly,  logical,  manly — one 
^who  never  swerved  from  what  he  believed  to  be 
right.  Peter  lacked  many  if  not  all  of  these 
elements. 

If  it  had  not  been   for    Paul  I  doubt   whether 


THE  OTHER   SUPPOSED  EPISTLES   OF   PAUL.    341 

Christianity'  would  have  been  heard  of  later  than 
the  third  century  after  the  death  of  Jesus. 

If  all  had  been  required  to  be  circumcised  and 
become  Je\YS  before  thej^  could  become  Christians, 
as  Peter  and  other  apostles  taught,  then  the  one 
hundred  and  fort3'-four  thousand,  spoken  of  in 
the  book  of  Revelation  as  having  been  sealed 
from  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  would  have 
made  up  more  than  all  the  Christians  there  ever 
would  have  been  in  the  world.  Paid,  in  spite  of 
all  opposition,  made  the  Christian  Religion  a 
uniA'crsal  religion,  and  thus  scattered  it  among 
all  nations,  and  left  it  as  an  inheritance  until 
there  should  be  given  a  newei  and  wiser  dis- 
pensation. 


CHA.PTER  XIX. 

THE  SEVEN    CATHOLIC  EPISTLE^. 

Why  Called  Catholic?— Some  of  Them  not  General— James 
not  Written  by  an  Apostle — "Written  not  to  Christians 
but  "to  the  Twelve  Tribes"— What  James  was  it?— Luth- 
er's  Opinion  of  this  Epistle— A  Good  Reproduction  of  the 
Theology  of  Jesus— This  Epistk  Anti-Pauline- When  was 
First  Peter  Written?— Written  from  Babj-lon- Was  this 
Babylon  Rome?— The  Epistle  more  like  Paul  than  Peter 
—Why  it  may  have  been  Written— Seaond  Peter— Its 
Genuineness  Always  Doubted— Was  it  an  Enlargement 
of  Judo?- Its  Author  Over-acts- Written  After  "the  fath- 
ers feM  Asleep" — Epistles  of  John  Anonymously  Written— 
Sunderland's  Opi^nion — Not  Written  b3^  the  John  who  was 
the  Associate  of  Jesus — The  Book  of  Jude— Hard  Work 
to  Get  into  our  Bible — Was  it  Written  by  the  Brother 
of  James  and  Jesus? — Pertinent  Remarks  of  Dr.  Chadv^'ick 
—Jude  gets  the  Wrong  Enoch. 

There  are  eight  more  books  in  the  Bible  not 
yet  examined.  Seven  of  them  are  Epistles.  They 
are  called  "Catholic  Epistles,"  on  the  ground 
that  they  are  general,  or  utiiYersal.  This  how- 
ever is  not  the  cas'e  with  all  of  them.  The  Sec- 
ond and  Thipd  Epistles  of  John  ''to  the  elect 
Lady,"  and  to  ''The  Beloved  Gains"  are  certain- 
ly not  general.  It  is  supposed  that  the  designa- 
tion Catholic  was  applied  to  them  to  designate 


THE  SEVEN   CATHOLIC   EPISTLES.  343 

them  from  Paul's  Epistles  every  one  of  which 
was  written  to  some  definite  church  or  person. 
The  only  exception  being  that  of  Colossians. 
This  he  commanded  them  to  cause  to  be  read 
to  the  Laodiceans,  also  that  they  should  read 
the  Epistle  from  the  Laodiceans.     Col.  iv.  16. 

Of  these  seven  Epistles  one  has  been  ascribed 
to  James,  two  to  Peter,  three  to  John,  and  one 
to  Jude.  Jude  is  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Test- 
ament called  Judas.  In  our  Bibles  the  Epistle 
of'Ta.mes  is  first  of  the  seven;  this  is  not  s-o  in 
all  Bibles. 

Who  the  James  was,  if  it  was  a  James  who 
wrote  this  Epistle  is  not  known.  He  does  not 
claim  to  be  an  apostle,  but  was  evidently  a 
Jew.  He  saj-s  he  was  a  servant  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Pie  addii-esses  his  letter,  not  to 
Christians,  but  to  *'the  twelve  tribes  who  are 
scattered  abroad." 

There  wei-e  at  least  three  Jameses  vvho  figured 
in  the  Ncay  Testament.  One  was  James,  the  son 
of  Zebedee.  This  James  sureh^  did  not  write  this 
book,  for  he  was  put  to  death  by  Herod  not 
more  than  seven  3'ears  after  the  mart^-rdom  of 
Jesus.  S<^  Acts  xii.  2.  Another  James  was  cal- 
led "The  Lord's  Brother."  Gal.  i.  19.  There 
was  also  a  James,  ''the  son  of  Alpheus." 

No  matter  who  wrote  the  book,  it  had  a  hard 
time  to  get  into  the  Bible.  Finalh',  by  a  trick 
of  its  friends  it  got  into  the  Bible  when  a  m.a- 
jority  wrre  opposed  to  it.  This  was  done  at 
Carthage  in  the  year  397, 


344     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Martin  Luther  had  a  very  poor  opinion  of  this 
book.  He  is  quoted  as  saying:  **It  is  an  epistle 
of  straw,  in  comparison  with  them,  (other  Epis- 
tles) for  it  has  nothing  evangelical  about  it." 
Again,  in  speaking  of  its  author,  Luther  said: 
"Methinks  it  must  have  been  some  good,  pious 
man  who  took  some  of  the  sayings  of  the  dis- 
ciples of  the  apostles  down  on  paper."  Mr. 
Chad  wick,  after  referring  to  some  of  Luther's 
sayings  on  this  Epistle  says: 

''But  this  was  because  it  contradicted  his  favorite 
doctrine  of  justification  b3'  faith.  The  chances  are 
chat  it  is  the  best  reproduction  anywhere  contained 
in  the  New  Testament  Epistles  of  the  Christianity  of 
Jesus,  a  moral,  not  a  theological  system.  THe  object 
of  the  letter  was  to  correct  certain  abuses  that  were 
prevalent  among  the  Jewish  Christians,  such  as  invid- 
ious distinctions  between  the  rich  and  poor,  and  am- 
bition for  ecclesiastical  preferment.  The  expectation 
of  the  second  coming  of  Jesus  is  nowhere  more  con- 
^picious.  'Stablish  your  hearts;  for  the  coming  of  the 
Lord  draweth  nigh.  Behold  the  Judge  standeth  before 
the  door.'  But  the  anti-Pauline  drift  of  the  Epistle  is 
the  most  evident  trait.  'What  doth  it  profit,  my 
brethren,  if  a  man  say  he  hath  faith,  and  hath  not 
^works?  Can  faith  save  him?'  From  the  common 
;sense  point  of  view  this  writer  makes  an  excellent  ap- 
pearance; but  it  is  certain  that  he  was  not  deep-natur- 
ed  enough  to  appreciate  the  spiritual  significance  of 
Paul's  religion.  And  so  he  arrogantly  addresses  him. 
'But  wilt  thou  know,  O  vain  man  that  faith  without 
works  is  dead?'  Possibly  Paul  is  not  intended,  but 
probably  he  is.  That  his  doctrine  is  intended  does  not 
admit  of  a  doubt.     The    early    church   was   not  quite 


THE   SEVKX   CATHOLIC    EPISTLES.  345 

the  happy  family  of  the  popular  imagination.  Divis. 
ions,  hatreds,  rivalries,  were  as  common  then  as  now, 
and  quite  as  sharp  and  bitter." 

THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER. 

The  First  Epistle  of  Peter  must  next  pass  un- 
der review.  Great  writers,  Baur  among  them, 
have  concluded  that  this  was  not  written  tmtil 
about  the  end  of  Trajan's  reign,  about  the  year 
117. 

This  letter  purports  to  have  been  written  from 
Babylon.  At  least  Chapter  v.  13  says:  *^The 
church  that  is  at  Babjdon,  elected  together  with 
you,  saluteth  you,  and  so  doth  Marcus,  my  son." 

This  could  not  have  been  written  from  the 
ancient  city  of  Babylon,  where  there  never  was 
a  church — a  city  which  had  become  the  home  of 
wild  beasts  long  before  Peter  was  born.  This 
Babylon  must  therefore  have  been  Rome.  This 
city  v^as  first  called  Babylon  in  the  Apocalpse, 
but  that  book  was  not  written  until  nearly  or 
quite  forty  years  after  Peter  had  fallen  under 
Nero. 

These  things,  together  with  the  idea  that  the 
doctrines  in  this  book  were  Pauline,  and  not 
Petrine,  have  caused  critics  to  conclude  that  this 
book  could  not  have  been  w^ritten  before  the 
second  century.  Again,  this  Epistle  refers  to  a 
general  persecution,  which  did  not  take  place 
until  in  the  reign  of  Trajan,  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  first  and  early  part  of  the  second  century. 

There  are  certain  second  century  w^ritings  now 
extant,  which  give  a  somewhat  dififerent  view  of 


346      THE  BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER   CKITiCISM. 

the  battle  between  Peter  and  Simon  Magus  than 
is  found  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles;  also  that 
give  a  very  different  account  of  the  conference 
in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Acts  from  that  one. 
These  represent  Paul  as  throwing  James  down 
from  the  top  steps  of  the  house  where  the  meet- 
ing w^as  held.  This  account  does  not  dispute 
that  Paul  talked  to  Peter  as  he  represented  in 
Galatians,  but  it  represented  Peter  as  saying  to 
Paul,  "What  if  3rou  did  see  Jesus?  It  was  only 
for  a  single  hour,  and  while  you  were  asleep.  I 
was  with  him  a  whole  3^ear  when  I  was  awake." 
Thus  the  quarrel  began  and  thus  it  continued 
through  their  whole  lives.  Such  a  man  as  that 
could  hardly  have  written  these  Pauline  doc- 
trines in  this  Epistle.  It  is  much  more  likely 
that  this  was  written  after  the  effort  had  been 
made  to  harmonize  the  two  churches  and  they 
were  made  one — written  perhaps  to  create  the 
impression  that  there  never  was  any  diffierence 
between  Peter  and  Paul.  The  difference  however 
was  too  plainly  stated  by  Paul  in  Second  Cor- 
inthians and  Galatians  to  be  covered  up  by  any 
Pauline  Epistles  professing  to  come  from  Peter. 

THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER. 

Next  comes  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter.  The 
real  author  of  this  book  is  not  and  perhaps 
never  will  be  known.  On  this  Epistle  Rev.  Wash- 
ington Gladden  truthfully  says: 

"The  second  Epistle  of  Peter  is  the  one  book  of  the 
New  Testament  concerning  whose  genuineness  there  is 
the  most  doubt.     From  the  earliest  days  the  canonicity 


THE   SEVEN   CATHOLIC   EPISTLES.  347 

of  this  book  has  been  disputed.  It  is  not  mentioned 
bj  any  early  Christian  writer  before  the  third  century; 
and  Origen,  who  is  the  first  one  to  aUude  to  the  book, 
testifies  that  its  genuineness  has  been  doubted.  The 
early  versions  do  not  contain  it;  Eusebius  marks  it 
doubtful;  Erasmus  and  Calvin,  in  latter  times,  regard- 
ed it  as  a  dubious  document.  It  seems  almost  incredi- 
ble, with  such  witnesses  against  it,  that  the  book 
should  be  genuine;  but  if  it  is  not  the  work  of  St. 
Peter  it  is  a  fraudulent  writing,  for  it  openly  anncun- 
cea  him  as  its  author  and  refers  to  his  First  Epistle. 
There  is  a  remarkable  similarity  between  this  letter 
and  the  short  Epistle  to  Jude;  it  would  appear  fhat 
this  must  be  an  imitation  and  enlargement  of  that,  or 
that  a  condensation  of  this.  There  are  some  passages 
in  this  book  with,  which  we  could  ill  aJBford  to  part, 
with  which  indeed,  we  never  shall  part;  for  whether 
they  \ytre  written  by  Peter  or  not  they  express  clear 
and  indubitable  verities;  and,  even  though  the  author, 
Uke  that  of  Balaam,  whom  he  quotes,  may  have  been 
no  true  prophet,  he  was  constrained,  even  as  Balaam 
was,  to  utter  some  stimulating  and  wholesome  truths." 
—  Who  Wrote  the  Bible,  pp.  232,  233. 

This  Epistle  was  forced  into  the  Canon,  at 
Carthage  in  the  year  397;  even  then  its  Peferine 
authorship  was  denied  by  many  of  the  best 
Christians.  It  has  been  supposed  that  some  of 
it  was  copied  from  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  which 
was  written  much  earlier  than  this  Epistle. 

Mr.  Chadwick  thinks  that  the    writer    of  this 
Epistle  over-acts  in  his  attempt  to  pass  himself 
oif  as  Peter.    As  a  sample,  note  the    expression. 
"Our  beloved  brother  Paul."     Chapter  iii.  15,  16 
This  over-does  the  m/^tter.      I  have    shown  tha< 


348      THE   BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER   CRITKHSAL. 

Peter  and  Paul  were  theological  enemies;  and  that 
the  breach  between  the  Petrine  and  Pauline  part- 
ies was  not  healed  until  w^e  get  at  least  one 
quarter  of  the  way  through  the  second  century. 
Furthermore,  he  speaks  of  some  of  the  * 'unlearn- 
ed and  unstable,"  -wresting  the^wri tings  of  Paul, 
as  they  did  the  "other  Scriptures.'*  No  part  of  the 
New  Testament  was  classed  with  *'the  other 
scriptures,"  until  near  the  close  of  the  second 
century. 

Again,  it  is  evident  from  the  words  of  Jesus  and 
Paul,  that  that  event  which  was  designated  as 
the  second  advent  of  Christ  was  expected  during 
the  days  of  the  Apostles.  They  were  mistaken, 
and  the  writer  of  this  Epistle  suffered  under  the 
odium  arising  from  that  mistake.  In  Chapter 
iii.  3,  4-,  this  writer  says: 

"Knowing  this  first,  that  there  shall  come  in  the 
last  days  scoffers  walking  after  their  own  lusts,  and 
saying,  where  is  the  promise  of  his  coming?  for  since 
the  fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things  continue  as  they  were 
from  the  beginning  of  the  creation." 

What  does  this  mean,  if  it  does  not  mean  that 
they  must  have  expected  the  very  scoffing  they 
were  meeting?  Were  not  the  Apostles  asleep? 
thus  giving  them  an  opportunity  to  say  "since 
the  fathers  fell  asleep"— that  is  the  fathers  who 
promised  the  event  in  their  day— "all  things  con- 
tinue as  they  were  from  the  beginning  of  crea- 
tion." I  do  not  see  how  any  one  could  suppose 
this  could  have  been  written  by  an  Apostle. 
But,  as  Mr.  Gladden  intimates,    there   arc  good 


THE   SEVEN   CATHOLIC  EPISTLES.  349 

things  in  this  letter,  no    matter    \Yho    wrote  it. 

The  next  three  Epistles,  are  without  any  in- 
ternal reason,  ascribed  to  John.  They  are  pure- 
ly anonymous.  The  similarity  of  the  first  of 
these  Epistles  to  some  things  in  *'The  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  St.  John,"  was,  probably  the  reason 
for  ascribing  these  Epistles  to  that  author.  Mr» 
Sunderland  says: 

"The  first  of  these  Epistles  is  in  every  way  superior 
to  the  other  two.  It  has  all  the  characteristics  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  and  was  most  certainly  written  by  the 
same  author.  The  date  that  ^xe  must  assign  to  it,, 
which  cannot  be  far  removed  from  that  of  the 
Gospel,  depends  whether  we  accept  or  reject  the 
theory'  that  it  was  written  by  the  Apostle  John.  If 
we  accept  that  theory,  we  must  date  our  Epistle  about 
95,  or  100,  A.  D;  or,  if,  with  the  growing  tendency  of 
scholarship,  we  reject  it,  we  must  carr^^  the  production 
of  the  Epistle  forward  to  near  the  year  140,  A.  D. 
Most  of  the  arguments  that  bear  upon  the  authorship 
or  date  of  the  one  book,  hold  good  when  applied  to 
the  other.  The  place  of  the  writing  was  probably  Asia 
Minor.  For  purposes  of  spiritual  edification,  the 
Epistle,  as  well  as  the  Gospel,  stands  at  the  very  head 
of  the  New  Testament  literature." — Origin  and  Growth 
of  the  Bible,  pp.  158,  159. 

The  belief  is  every  day  gaining  ground  among 
critical  thinkers  that  the  first  of  these  Epistles 
was  written,  as  was  once  supposed,  by  the  same 
John  who  wrote  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  as  a 
kind  of  addendum  to  it;  if  that  is  so  it  affords 
an  additional  proof  that  the  fourth  Gospel  was 
not  written  by  the  same  John   who   wrote   the 


350      THE   BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Apocalypse.  The  more  general  and  critical  opin- 
ion among  the  learned  today  is,  that  the  Apos- 
tle John  wrote  the  Apocalypse,  and  that  the 
Gospel  of  John  was  from  a  different  and  later 
author. 

If  the  same  John  who  wrote  this  was  the  au- 
thor of  the  fourth  Gospel,  then  it  was  not  the 
John  who  was  the  personal  friend  and  disciple 
of  Jesus.  This  will  appear  in  the  examination 
of  the  book  of  the  Apocalypse.  Mr.  Chadwick 
says: 

"Tnat  there  is  here  anticipation  of  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel rather  than  imitation  I  am  convinced,  but  also  that 
it  is  the  anticipation  of  the  same  mind  whose  striking 
individuality  is  impressed  upon  the  later  work.  As- 
sured that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  not  the  work  of  John, 
the  Epistle  must  give  up  all  claims  to  be  his.  The 
date  of  its  appearance,  somewhat  prior  to  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  may  he  approximately  fixed  at  130  A.  D." 

As  the  other  two  Epistles  of  John  are  unim- 
portant private  letters,  one  of  them  written  by 
*'the  elder  unto  the  elect  lady,"  and  the  other, 
by  the  elder  unto  ''the  well  beloved  Gaius."  I 
will  not  examine  them. 

We  now  come  to  the  last  Epistle,  and  the  last 
book  but  one  in  the  New  Testament, — The  Epistle 
of  Jude,  or  Judas.  This  book  though  it  contains 
but  one  short  chapter  had  a  hard  time  getting 
into  the  New  Testament.  There  were  two  Jud- 
ases,  one  of  whom,  probably  committed  suicide. 
They  were  both  disciples  of  Jesus.  The  Jude  w^ho 
wrote  this  book  professes  to  be  ''the  brother  of 
James."    One  naturally  asks  which  James?    This 


THE   SEVEN   CATHOLIC   EPISTLES.  351 

James  was  evidently  not  an  Apostle;  if  he  was 
he  would  sturdy  not  seek  to  identify  himself  as 
"the  brother  of  James."  One  of  these  Jameses 
was  the  brother  of  Jesus;  this  would  make  Jude 
the  brother  of  Jesus.  Air.  Gladden  says  of  this 
book: 

"It  is  not  in  the  early  Sj-riac  version;  Eusebius  and 
Origen  question  it,  and  Chr>^sostom  does  not  mention 
it;  we  may  fairly  doubt  whether  it  came  from  the 
hand  of  any  apostolic  witness.  One  feature  of  this 
short  letter  deserves  mention;  the  writer  quotes  from 
one  of  the  old  apocryphal  books,  the  book  of  Enoch, 
treating  it  as  scripture.  If  a  New  Testament  citation 
authenticates  an  ancient  writing,  Enoch  must  be  re- 
garded as  an  inspired  book.  We  must  either  reject 
Jude  or  accept  Enoch,  or  abandon  the  rule  that  makes 
a  New  Testament  citation  a  proof  of  Old  Testament 
Canonicit^^" 

There  are  man 3'  good  points  in  the  book  of 
Jude.  It  is  an  able  and  somewhat  vigorous  at- 
tack on  some  of  the  licentious  kind,  who  had 
found  their  \y3.j  into  the  church.  These  he  char- 
acterized as  "spots  in  your  feasts  of  charity;" 
"clouds  without  water,"  "trees  whose  fruit  with- 
ereth,  twice  dsad,  plucked  up  by  the  roots," 
"raging  waves,"  and  "wandering  stars." 

He  quotes  from  the  book  of  Enoch,  which  was 
w^ritten  not  more  than  two  centuries  before 
Christ,  and  which  was  rejected  from  the  Canon. 
He  calls  Enoch  "the  seventh  from  Adam." 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE  APOCALYPSE. 

Has  At  Least  two  Authors— Some  Things  Written  Before  the 
Destruction  of  the  Temple — Some  in  the  Second  Century — 
Wise  Words  from  Dr.  Martineau — An  Apocr3'phal  Era — 
Some  of  the  Judaisms  of  the  Book— Redactor  Works 
Gentiles  in— Apocalypse  not  by  the  Author  of  Fourth 
Gospel— Thoughts  from  Chadwick— Wild  Interpretations- 
It  Contains  no  Prophecy  of  Distant  Future— Time  is  at 
Hand— Why  Written  in  Symbols— Chadwick's  Explana- 
tion—Dr.  Gladden  E.Niplains  Six-Hundred  Three  Score  and 
Six — Conclusion. 

We  now  come  to  the  last,  and  by  far  the  most 
Apocalyptic  book  of  the  Bible,  called  in  our  Bi- 
ble ''The  Revelation  of  St.  John  the  Divine." 
That  word  ''Divine,"  has  been  added  by  later 
writers.  Scholars  are  as  much  at  sea  about  the 
authorship  of  this  book,  as  on  that  of  any  other 
in  our  Bible.  To  me  the  most  probable  of  all 
hypotheses  is,  that  it  was  written  by  some  Jew 
with  a  definite  end  in  ^iew;  then,  perhaps,  some 
Christian  doctor  undertook  to  patch  it  t^  and 
make  a  Christian  book  of  it.  It  must  have  had 
not  less  than  two  authors.  There  are  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  any  theory  of  exposition  that  has 


THE  APOCALYPSE..  353 

yet  been  OiTered;  this  seems  to  have  fewer  of 
them  than  any  other;  and  now  seems  to  be 
growing  in  favor  with  critical  investigators. 

There  are  some  things  in  this  book  which  must 
have  been  written  while  the  Jewish  temple  was 
3'el:  standing;  that  temple  was  distro\'ed  in  A.  D. 
70.  There  are  other  things  in  the  book  which 
indicate  that  it  must  have  been  written  not 
earlier  than  the  second  century.  Chapter  xi.  1- 
1-i,  must  have  been  written  while  the  temple 
was  standing;  other  portions  are  of  much  later 
date.    Dr.  Martineau  said: 

"Plow  strange  that  we  should  ever  have  thought 
it  possible  for  a  personal  attendant  on  the  ministry 
of  Jesus  to  write  or  edit  a  book  mixing  up  fierce 
Messianic  conflicts,  in  which,  with  sword  and  gory 
garment,  the  blasting  fiame,  the  rod  of  iron,  as  his 
emblems,  he  leads  the  war-march,  and  treads  the  wine- 
press of  the  wrath  of  God  'till  the  deluge  of  blood 
rises  to  the  horses'  bits,  wdth  the  speculative  Christol- 
ogy  of  the  second  century,  without  a  memory  of  his 
life,  a  feature  of  his  look,  a  word  from  his  voice,  or  a 
glance  at  the  hill  side  of  Galilee,  the  courts  of  Jerusa- 
lem, the  road  to  Bethan3',  on  which  he  must  be  for- 
ever seen." 

From  two  hundred  years  before  Christ  until 
two  hundred  years  after  Christ,  was  pre-eminent- 
ly the  age  of  apocal3^ptical  writing  among  the 
Jews.  Not  long  before  or  about  the  opening  of 
this  period  was  the  book  of  Daniel  written; 
about  the  close,  or  not  long  after  the  last  redac- 
tor applied  the  closing  touches  to  the  book  of 
the  Apocalypse. 


354      THE   BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Before  exlilbiting  the  strong  evidences  of  Juda- 
ism in  this  book,  I  will  say  that  even  the  Christ- 
ian portions  of  it  partake  more  of  the  Spirit  of 
the  Joshua,  or  Jesus  of  the  Old  Testament  than 
it  does  of  the  Jesus  or  Joshua  of  the  New  Test- 
ament. 

Remember  the  claim  is,  that  this  book  was 
written  hj  the  John  who  was  a  personal  friend^ 
aye,  a  disciple  of  Jesus — by  the  John  whom  Jesus 
loved.  Is  it  possible  that  this  disciple  could 
have  written  the  Gospel  of  John,  the  first  Epis- 
tle of  John  and  then  have  represented  Jesus  as 
one  who  wore  blood-dipped  garments? 

If  this  book  was  written  by  a  Christian  it  was 
by  one  of  the  most  narrow  minded  of  the  Ebion- 
ites.  He  believed  in  nothing  else  but  Judaism. 
In  chapter  ii.  9,  the  angel  in  speaking  to  the 
church  of  Ephesus  said: 

"I  know  thy  works  and  tribulations,  and  poverty, 
(but  thou  art  rich)  and  I  know  the  blasphemy  of  them 
which  say  they  are  Jews  and  are  not,  but  are  of  the 
synagogue  of  Satan." 

Again,  in  chapter  iii.  9,  the  angel  in  speaking 
to  the  church  at  Sardis  said: 

"Behold,  I  will  make  them  of  the  synagogue  of  Satan 
which  say  they  are  Jews,  and  are  not,  but  do  lie;  be- 
hold I  will  make  them  to  come  and  worship  before 
thy  feet,  and  to  know  that  I  have  loved  thee." 

In  vii.  4-8,  the  writer  says: 

"And  I  heard  the  number  of  them  that  were  sealed; 
and  they  were  sealed  an  hundred  and  forty  and  four 
thousand  of  all  the  tribes  of  the  children  of  Israel.  Of 
the  tribe  of  Judah  were  sealed   twelve   thousand.     Of 


THE  APOCALYPSE.  355 

the  tribe  of  Reuben  were  sealed  twelve  thousand.  Of 
the  tribe  of  Gad  were  sealed  twelve  thousand.  Of  the 
tribe  of  Aser  were  sealed  twelve  thousand.  Of  the 
tribe  of  Nepthalim  were  sealed  twelve  thousand.  Of 
the  tribe  of  Alanases  were  sealed  twelve  thousand. 
Of  the  tribe  of  Simeon  were  sealed  twelve  thousand. 
Of  the  tribe  of  Levi  were  sealed  twelve  thousand.  Of 
the  tribe  of  Isachar  were  sealed  twelve  thousand.  Of 
the  tribe  of  Zebulon  were  sealed  twelve  thousand.  Of 
the  tribe  of  Joseph  were  sealed  twelve  thousand.  Of 
the  tribe  of  Benjamin  were  sealed  twelve  thousand." 

At  the  close  of  this  is  a  good  place  for  the  in- 
terpolator or  redactor  to  get  in  his  work,  and 
he  improves  his  opportunity  to  work  the  Gentiles 
in.     He  sa3^s,  in  the  next  verse: 

"And  after  this  I  beheld,  and  lo,  a  great  multitude 
which  no  man  could  number,  of  all  nations,  and  kind- 
reds and  people,  and  tongues,  stood  before  the  throne, 
and  before  the  lamb,  clothed  with  white  robes  and 
palms  in  their  hands." 

This  was  an  addition  to  the  hundred  and  for- 
ty-four thousand  not  elsewhere  provided  for,  iu 
this  book.  See  Rev.  xiv.  3.  This  other  writer, 
as  was  suggested  brings  his  lamb  with  him  into 
this  scene. 

The  writer  of  this  book,  who  everywhere  fav- 
ors the  Jews  could  not  have  been  the  writer  of 
the  fourth  Gospel,  which  everywhere  denounces 
them.  Thus,  the  middle  wall  of  partition  is  kept 
up  through  this  book. 

Scholars,  who  understand  the  matter,  tell  us 
that  the  Gospel  of  John  was  written  in  good, 
pure  Greek,  while  the  one  who  wrote  the  Apoca- 


356      THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

lypse  wrote  m  the  particularly  bad  Greek  used  in 
Palestine;  filling  this  book  with  Aramaic  and 
Hebrew  idioms.  This  is  all  sufficient  proof  that 
the  John  of  the  Gospel  was  not  the  John  of  the 
Apocalypse. 

When  it  comes  to  the  question  as  to  which  of 
the  two  Johns  was  the  real  disciple  and  personal 
friend  of  Jesus,  the  balance  of  critical  opinion  is 
decidedly  in  favor  of  the  one  who  wrote  the 
Johnine  part  of  the  Apocalypse. 

Before  closing  the  argument  on  this  part  of 
the  subject  I  must  make  rather  a  lengthy  quota- 
tion from  Rev.  John  Chad  wick.  On  pp.  242^ 
243  he  says: 

''Those  who  have  failed  to  find  the  individuality  of 
John  in  the  Apocalypse  base  their  ideas  of  his  indi- 
viduality entirely  upon  the  fourth  Gospel.  Aside  from 
this,  the  Apocal3^pse  is  in  singular  harmony  with  what 
w^e  know  of  the  Apostle.  He  appears  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  as  the  'son  of  thunder,'  impetuous  and  fierce, 
wishing  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven  on  a  Samaritan 
village.  He  appears  in  Paul's  Epistles  and  even  in  the- 
mediating  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  as  a  narrow,  Judaizing^ 
conservative  opponent  of  the  Apostle  to  the.  Gentiles^ 
and  in  the  Apocalypse  he  is  thoroughly  Jewish.  The 
Elders,  or  elect  sit  upon  thrones  immediately  adjacent 
to  Yahweh's  and  participate  in  his  Judicial  functions. 
These  are  all  Jews.  The  Gentiles  have  back  seats  as- 
signed them.  They  become  quasi  Jews.  In  the  catas- 
trophe which  he  foretells,  the  temple  is  miraculously 
preserved  and  Jerusalem  is  the  capital  of  the  Messianic 
Kingdom.  The  hostility  to  Pauline  universalism  is 
exactly  what  we  should  expect  from  John,  forming  our 
conceptions  of  him  upon  Paul's  Epistles.    One  must  be 


THE  APOCALYPSE.  357 

wilfully  blind  not  to  perceive  that  Paul  and  his  fol- 
lowers are  designated  when  we  read  of  'those  who 
say  they  are  Apostles  and  are  not,  but  are  liars,' 
and  of  'those  of  the  synagogue  of  Satan,  who  say 
the}'  are  Jews,  but  are  not,'  and  of  'the  doctrine  of 
Balaam,'  that  it  is  lawful  to  eat  things  offered  to 
idols.  Paul  claims  to  have  knowledge  of  'the  deep 
things  of  God.'  'The  deep  things  of  Satan'  ratherj  re- 
torts the  Apocalypse. 

"Was  it  by  any  accident  that  the  names  of  only 
twelve  Apostles  were  in  the  foundations  of  the  New 
Jerusalem?  Is  it  not  much  more  likely  from  the  gen- 
eral tone  of  the  Apocalypse  that  Paul  was  purposely 
excluded?  There  is  no  other  feature  of  the  Apocalypse 
which  differentiates  it  from  the  fourth  Gospel  so  much 
as  this;  The  Apocalyptist  is  one  of  the  narrowest  of 
Jewish  Christians;  the  fourth  Evangelist  is  one  of  the 
narrowest  of  anti-Jewish   Christians." 

Ever}^  possible  imaginary  interpretation  has 
been  put  upon  this  book,  as  has  been  upon  all 
books  of  its  kind.  Even  now  there  are  numerous 
wildeyed  interpreters,  fitting  all  essentials  of  this 
book  to  our  war  with  the  inhabitants  of  the 
Philippine  Islands;  and  if,  by  any  chance  there 
should  be  found  a  text  that  will  not  exactly  fit 
there,  it  can  be  easily  fitted  into  the  war  between 
Great  Britian  and  the  Boers  of  South  Africa. 

Emanuel  Swedenborg  wrote  "The  Apocalypse 
Revealed,"  a  commentary  of  over  twelve  hundred 
pages  on  this  book,  and  by  the  way,  as  sensible 
a  commentary  as  the  book  ever  received.  Others 
have  written  and  still  others  will  be  found  to 
writ^  on  it  as  long  as  there  are  ships  on  the  sea 


358     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

or  nations  on  tlie  earth.  Every  new  war,  or 
even  every  new  invention  or  every  new  disease 
which  may  attack  the  potato  crop  may  expect 
to  find  some  one  who  will  fit  some  portion  of 
the  Apocalypse  to  it,  and  find  it  to  fit  as  neatly 
as  ever  a  glove  fitted  a  hand.  John  Calvin  man- 
ifested good  sense  by  refusing  to  comment  on 
this  book. 

The  Apocalypse  had  a  hard  time  in  getting  in- 
to our  Canon;  and,  at  last  got  in  by  only  one 
vote.  If  that  vote  had  been  cast  the  other  way 
the  world  would  have  been  as  wise,  and  our  in- 
sane as3dums,  at  certain  periods  would  not  have 
been  over-crowded  as  they  have  been.  Dr.  South 
was  not  far  out  of  the  way  when  he  said:  "The 
book  of  Revelation  either  finds  a  man  mad,  or 
makes  him  so." 

I  do  not  think  the  author,  or  authors,  as  the 
case  may  be,  of  this  book  intended  it  as  a  series 
of  prognostications  of  the  future  of  this  world. 
It  was  undoubtedly  intended  to  apply  to  events 
which  had  past  and  were  at  that  time  passing. 
The  writer  perhaps,  looked  no  farther  into  the 
future  than  we  do  when  we  give  the  prognosis 
of  an  approaching  election.  The  first  three  verses 
of  this  book  state  the  matter  so  plainly  as  not 
to  be  easily  misunderstood. 

"The  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  God  gave 
unto  him,  to  show  unto  his  servants  things  which 
must  shortly  come  to  pass;  and  he  sent  and  signified 
it  unto  his  servant  John;  who  bear  record  of  the  word 
of  God  and  of  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ,    and    of 


THE  APOCALYPSE.  359 

all  things  that  he  saw.  Blessed  is  he  that  readeth, 
and  the^'  that  hear  the  words  of  this  prophec3^  and 
keep  those  things  which  are  written  therein;  for  the 
time  is  at  hand."     Rev.  i.  1-3. 

How  this  can  be  made  to  refer  to  the  then 
distant  future  it  will  take  at  least  a  theologian 
to  tell.  As  further  proof  that  the  writer  was  re- 
ferring to  passing  events  verse,  19  of  this  same 
chapter  says:  * 'Write  the  things  which  thou 
hast  seen,  and  the  things  which  are  and  the 
things  which  shall  be  hereafter."  The  things 
which  shall  be  hereafter,  should  be  rendered  as 
the  Emphatic  Diaglott  has  it;  **The  things 
which  are  about  to  transpire." 

The  writer  of  this  book  evidently  shared  the 
belief  of  all  the  New  Testament  writers,  that 
the  end  of  all  things  was  right  upon  them. 

In  Rev.  xxii.  7,  he  said,  "Behold  I  come  quick- 
ly." In  verse  12,  he  said:  "Behold  I  come  quick- 
ly, and  m\'  reward  is  with  me."  Verse  20  says: 
"He  which  testifieth  these  things  saith,  surely  I 
come  quieklv."  And  the  writer  adds,  "Amen, 
even  so,  come  Lord  Jesus."  On  this  point  this 
writer  proved  himself  as  thoroughly  mistaken 
as  were  Jesus,  Paul,  Peter  and  Jude. 

Perhaps  the  main  part  of  this  book  was  writ- 
ten during  the  persecution  of  the  Christians  un- 
der Nero,  and  his  immediate  successors;  or  near 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Perhaps,  reader, 
if  you  and  I  had  been  there  it  might  have  look- 
ed the  same  to  us.  Perhaps  again  if  we  had 
written  on  the  matter  to  seven  churches,    or   to 


360     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

seven  cltibs  of  otir  friends,  we  w^ould  have  writ- 
ten in  a  language  not  easily  understood  by  our 
enemies.  Perhaps,  again  the  people  for  whom 
this  was  written  had  a  key  which  would  help 
them  to  understand  the  matter.  On  this  point 
Dr.  Gladden  quotes  Dr.  Hamack  as  follows: 

"The  political  situation  culminated  in  a  crisis  for 
the  people  of  God,  the  Apocalypse  appeared  stirring 
up  the  believers;  in  spirit,  form,  plan,  and  execution 
they  closely  resembled  each  other.  *  *  *  They  all  spoke 
in  riddles;  that  is,  by  means  of  images,  symbols,  mys- 
tic numbers,  forms  of  animals,  etc.,  they  half  conceal- 
ed what  they  meant  to  reveal.  The  reason  for  this 
procedure  was  not  far  to  seek;  (1)  Clearness  and  dis- 
tinction would  have  been  too  profane;  only  the  mys- 
terious appears  divine.  (2)  It  was  often  dangerous  to 
be  distinct." 

For  a  rather  sensible  exposition  of  a  part  of 
this  book — a  part,  by  the  way  which  may  serve 
as  a  key  to  other  portions  I  once  more  refer  the 
reader  to  John  Chadwick.  On  pa<3^e  244  of  his 
''Bible  of  Today,"  he  says: 

"And  there  are  seven  kings,  'we  read,'  'five  are  fallen 
and  one  is,  and  the  other  is  not  yet  come,  and  when 
he  cometh  he  must  continue  a  short  space;  and  the 
beast  that  was  and  is  not,  even  he  is  the  eighth,  and 
is  of  the  seven,  and  goeth  into  perdition.'  The  five 
fallen  kings  evidently  are  Augustus,  Tiberius,  Caligula, 
Claudius,  Nero.  The  one  that  is  reigning  is  more 
doubtful.  Galba,  Otho  and  Vitellius  reigned  so  short 
a  time,  and  were  so  partially  acknowledged  through- 
out the  Empire,  that  possibly  they  were  passed    over. 

In  this  case  Vespasian  is  the  sixth,  and  as   his   like- 


THE   ArOCALYPSE.  361 

Itest  successor,  Titus,  is  the  other  who  is  uot  yet 
come.  'When  he  comes  he  must  continue  a  short 
space,'  because  the  beast  that  was  and  is  not  is  to  re- 
turn and  rule  the  Empire  in  his  place.  Who  is  this 
'beast  that  was  and  is  not?'  Nero  beyond  a  doubt. 
For  there  is  abundant  evidence  of  a  wide  spread  be- 
lief after  the  death  of  Nero  that  he  was  not  reall3^ 
dead,  but  somewhere  concealed,  and  that  he  would 
come  back  again  to  seize  the  sceptre.  For  this  belief 
we  have  the  evidence  of  the  four  great  historians,  Sue- 
tonius, and  Tacitus,  and  Dio  Chrisostom  and  Dio 
Cassius,  besides  a  great  abundance  in  the  Sibylline  or- 
acles and  the  church  fathers." 

The  ''six  hundred  three  score  and  six,"  Mr. 
Gladden  does  not  apply  to  the  future,  but  ex- 
plains as  follows: 

"John  here  tells  us  what  is  the  numerical  value  of 
the  letters  in  the  name  of  the  Beast.  If  we  tried  the 
Latin  or  the  Greek  name  of  Nero  the  clue  w^ould  not 
be  found;  but  John  was  written  mainlj^  for  the  He- 
brews, and  the  Hebrew  letters  of  KESAR  NERON,  the 
name  by  which  every  Jew  knew  his  Emperor,  amount 
to  exactly  666." 

Here  our  work  on  the  Higher  Criticism,  prop- 
er must  end.  It  remains  now  that  we  present 
a  few  facts  concerning  the  Canon,  and  how  it 
was  made*    Also  a  chapter  on  other  Bibles. 


CHAPTER  XXL 

HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON. 

Canon,  Definition  of— Our  Canon  made  up  of  Sixtj-six  Tracts 
^Canon  not  Closed  with  the  Apocalypse — Canon  began 
Under  Ezra— Continued  Under  Nehemiah— Nehemiah  En- 
dorsed Books  now  Lost — Facts  as  Stated  by  Encyclopedia 
Britannica — Samaritans  and  Sadducees  Rejected  Prophets 
and  Other  Writings— Two  Old  Testaments— Light  on  the 
Subject  from  Dr.  Gladden— Suspended  on  a  vSlender 
Thread— Old  Testament  Divided  into  three  parts — Only 
Twenty-two  Books  in  Josephus',  Canon — How  the  Num- 
ber Increased— Church  Fathers  used  Apocryphal  Books — 
Canon  made  under  St.  Augustine  in  393 — Another  in  397 
— Another  made  in  1546 — Ours  made  About  1650— Old 
Testament  more  Authoritative  Among  Early  Christians 
— Catholic  Canon  made  at  Trent  in  1546— Anathematiza- 
tion of  all  who  Rejected  it — Greek  Church  made  Canon 
in  1638 — Protestant  Canon  made  at  Westminster  About 
1650 — Protestants  Reject  Fourteen  Books — Paul's  Writ- 
ings Rejected  by  the  Early  Church— Constantine's  Canon 
Rejected  Several  of  our  Books — Luther  made  his  own 
Canon — Rejected  Several  of  our  Books. 

The  word  Canon  conies  from  the  Greek  word 
**Kanon.''  It  originally  meant  a  straight  rod  or 
pole.  Metaphorically  it  meant  that  which 
serTCS  to  keep  a  thing  straight.  The  word  is 
translated  rule  in    Gal.  vi.   16,  where  Paul  says: 

"As    many   as  walk     according     to  this  rule, 


HISTORY   OF  THE   CAXOX.  363 

(kanon,)  peace  be  on  them,  and  merc^^,  and  up- 
on the  Israel  of  God."  Webster's  second  defi- 
nition of  the  word  Canon  is  the  one  in  which 
the  word  is  used  in  reference  to  the  scriptures: 

"A  law  or  rule  of  doctrine  or  discipline  enacted  bA"- 
a  council  and  confirmed  by  the  pope  or  the  sovereign; 
a  decision,  a  code,  or  constitution  made  by  an  ecclesi- 
astical authority.  The  collection  of  books  received  as 
the  genuine  Hoh^  Scriptures,  called  the  Sacred  Canon, 
or  general  rule  of  moral  and  religious  duties  given  by 
inspiration;  the  Bible." 

Thus  *the  Canon  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
a  catalogue  of  the  books  which  have  been  de- 
clared by  councils  as  the  authoritative  books  of 
the  Bible.  In  the  Protestant  churches  the  Canon 
consists  of  the  thirt3^-nine  books  bound  up  in 
the  Old  Testament  and  the  twent3'-seYen  of  the 
New.  Thus  our  Bible  is  made  up  of  sixtj^-six 
tracts  written  in  different  countries  and  ages  of 
the  world. 

In  the  last  book  of  our  Bible,  as  we  have  it 
bound,  but  not  the  last  one  written,  by  nearly 
one  hundred  years,  we  find  a  text  which  says: 

"For  I  testify  unto  every  man  that  heareth  the  words 
of  the  prophecy  of  this  book,  if  any  man  shall  add  unto 
these  things,  God  shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues  that 
are  written  in  this  book;  and  if  any  man  shall  take 
away  from  the  words  of  the  book  of  this  prophecy, 
God  shall  take  aw^ay  his  part  out  of  the  book  of 
life,  and  out  of  the  holy  city,  and  from  the  things 
which  are  written  in  this  book."     Rev.   xxii.  18,  19. 

This  has  been  interpreted  to  mean:  ''The  Can- 
on is   now  complete;  God    has   uttered   his   last 


364  THE   BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

word;  no  more  books  will  be  written.  Should 
such  a  thing  be  attempted,  the  prescribed  pen- 
alties will  be  the  result.  Woe  to  the  man  who 
does  not  accept  the  Canon  herein  completed. 
We  must  take  the  Bible,  all  of  it,  as  it  is— no 
more,  no  less." 

This  interpretation,  which  has  been  the  popu- 
lar one,  is  incorrect.  The  author  of  the  text 
only  intended  to  warn  his  readers  not  to  at- 
tempt any  change  in  his  book  by  adding  to  it 
or  taking  from  it.  Similar  texts  are  found  else- 
^where  in  the  Bible.  Proverbs  xxx.  6-,  says: 
"''Add  thou  not  unto  his  words  lest  he  reprove 
thee,  and  thou  be  found  a  liar."  This  warning 
is  against  putting  out  as  inspiration  that  which 
is  your  own.  When  John  -wrote  the  Apocalypse 
he  did  not  add  to  the  words  of  the  book  of 
Proverbs;  nor  does  any  one  add  to  the  book  of 
the  Apocal^^pse  by  writing  another,  even  though 
such  boolj  be  written  under  inspiration. 

When  the  text  under  consideration  was  writ- 
ten, even  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  which 
then  existed,  were  not  collected  into  a  volume. 
The  passage  could  not,  therefore,  have  any  refer- 
ence to  the  Bible  as  a  whole. 

The  questions  to  be  considered  in  this  chapter 
are:  How  was  our  Bible,  that  is  our  collection 
of  books,  made,  as  a  collection?  Who  made  it, 
and  what  authority  did  its  makers  have  for 
their  work?  These  questions  are  purely  histori- 
cal, and  can  only  be  settled  by  an  appeal  to 
history. 


HISTORY   OF  THE  CANON.  365 

It  is  not  claimed  that  our  Canon  was  made 
by  inspired  men,  nor  that  it  was  all  made  at 
once.  In  fact  with  the  Protestant  church,  which 
never  accepted  the  Catholic  Canon,  the  question 
as  to  what  JDooks  belong  to  our  Bible  was  not 
settled  until  late  in  the  sixteenth  century  of  our 
era.  The  work  began  by  Ezra  nearly  five  hun- 
dred years  before  Christ.  Ezra  gathered  to- 
gether the  Pentateuch,  or  what  is  called  ''the 
five  books  of  Moses,"  if  he  did  not  write  them; 
and  made  one  "Hoh^  Book"  of  them.  Nehemiah 
continued  the  work  of  Ezra.  The  work  is  told 
at  length  in  Second  Maccabees,  second  chapter. 
Verses  13,  14,  read  as  follows: 

"The  same  things  also  were  reported  in  the  writ- 
ings and  commentaries  of  Neemias  (Nehemiah;)  and 
how  he,  founding  a  Hbrary,  gathered  tog'ether  the  acts 
of  the  kings,  and  the  prophets,  and  David,  and  the 
Epistles  of  the  kings  concerning  the  holy  gifts.  In 
like  manner  also,  Judas  gathered  together  all  those 
things  tha-t  were  lost  by  reason  of  the  war  we  had, 
and  they  remain  with  us." 

Nehemiah  certainly  gathered  in  this  **libra4*y" 
books  which  are  not  in  our  Bible;  w^hile  "tbe 
acts  of  the  kings  and  of  the  prophets,  and  of 
David."  may  possibly  refer  to  the  books  now 
called  I.  and  II.  Samuel  and  I.  and  II.  Kings, 
we  have  no  books  corresponding  to  "The  Epis- 
tles of  the  Kings  concerning  Holy  Gifts."  Sev- 
eral of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
not  yet  written;  among  them  were  the  book  of 
Malachi,  and  the  book  of  Daniel.  The  Encj-clo- 
pedia  Britannica  says: 


366   THE  BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

"This  Canon,  however,  was  not  considered  to  be 
closed  before  the  first  century  after  Christ.  There 
were  doubts  about  some  portions.  The  book  of  Eze- 
kiel  gave  offense  because  some  of  its  statements  seem- 
ed to  contradict  the  law.  Doubts  about  others  were 
of  a  more  serious  nature— about  Ecclesiastes,  the  Can- 
ticles, Esther  and  Proverbs.  The  first  was  impugned 
because  it  had  contradictory  passages  and  a  heretical 
tendency;  the  second  because  of  its  worldly  and  sen- 
sual tone;  Esther  for  its  want  of  religiousness;  and 
Proverbs  on  account  of  inconsistencies.  This  skepti- 
cism went  far  to  procure  the  exclusion  of  the  suspected 
works  from  the  Canon,  and  their  relegation  to  a  class 
of  the  genuzim.  But  it  did  not  prevail.  Hananiah, 
son  of  Hezekiah,  son  of  ©aron,  about  32  B.  C,  is 
said  to  have  reconciled  the  contradictions  and  allayed 
the  doubts.  But  these  traces  of  resistance  to  the  fixity 
of  the  Canon  were  not  the  last.  They  reappeared 
about  65  A.  D.,  as  we  learn  from  'the  Talmud,  when 
the  controversy  turned  mainly  upon  the  canonicity  of 
Ecclesiastes,  which  the  school  of  Shammai,  who  had 
the  majority,  opposed;  so  that  the  book  was  prob- 
ably excluded.  The  question  emerged  again  at  a  later 
synod  at  Jabneh  or  Jamnia,  when  R.  Eleaser  Ben 
Asaria  was  chosen  Patriarch,  and  Gamaliel  the  Sec- 
ond, deposed.  Here  it  was  decided,  not  unanimously, 
however,  by  a  majority  of  Hillelites,  that  Ecclesiastes 
and  the  So'^c"  of  Songs  pollute  the  hands,  that  is,  be- 
long properiy  to  Hagiographa.  This  was  about  90 
A.  D.  Thus,  the  question  of  the  canonicity  of  certain 
books  was  discussed  at  two  synods.  The  canon  was 
virtually  settled  at  Jamnia,  w^here  was  confirmed  what 
R.  Akiba  said  of  the  Canticles  in  his  usual  extrava- 
gant way.  *No  day  in  the  whole  history  of  the  world 
is  of  so  much  worth  as  the  one  in  which  the  Song  of 


HISTORY  OF   THE   CANON.  367 

Songs  was  given  to  Israel;  for  all  scriptures  are  boly, 
but  the  Song'  of  Songs  is  most  holy.'  The  Hagio- 
graphia  were  not  read  in  public,  with  the  exception 
of"  Esther;  opinions  among  the  Jewish  Rabbins  might 
still  diflfer  about  Cant-icles  and  Ecclesiastes,  even  after 
the  synod  of  Jamnia." 

The  books  of  the  Bible  were  by  the  Jews  di- 
vided into  three  parts.  First  in  importance  was 
the  law— the  Pentateuch.  Second,  the  Prophets, 
and  third,  the  Hagiographa  or  writings.  The 
Samaritans  were  the  Israelites  who  separated 
from  the  Jews  in  the  da3^s  of  Solomon's  son 
Rehoboam. 

At  the  time  of  the  separation  only  the  Penta- 
teuch was  recognized,  and  it  is  doubtful  it  even 
that  existed  as  it  is  now,  or  even  as  a  Penta- 
teuch. The  Samaritans  never  accepted  an}-  other 
portions  of  the  Old  Testament  than  the  Penta- 
teuch, the  same  is  probably  true  of  the  Saddu- 
cees. 

As  the  law  was  the  only^  authority-  the  Saddu- 
cees  acknowledged,  Jesus  found  it  necessarv, 
when  he  wanted  to  refute  them,  to  quote  their 
own  law  to  them. 

Besides  these  two  books,  there  was  A'et  an- 
other Old  Testament  in  existence  in  the  days  of 
Jesus.  It  was  called  the  Septuagint.  Mr.  Glad- 
den speaks  of  it  as  lollows: 

"We  have  seen  alread3'  that  two  different  collections 
of  Old  Testament  writings  were  in  existence,  (^nc  in 
Hebrew,  and  the  other  a  translation  into  Greek,  made 
b^'  Jews  in  Alexandria,  and  called  the  Septuagint. 
The  latter  collection  was    the    one    most    used  bv  our 


368   THE  BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Lord  and  the  Apostles.  Much  of  the  greater  number 
of  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  found  in  the 
Gospels  and  Epistles  are  taken  from  the  Septnagint, 
This  Greek  Bible  contained  quite  a  number  of  books 
which  are  not  in  the  Hebrew  Bible;  the^'  were  later 
in  their  origin  than  any  of  the  Old  Testament  books; 
most  of  them  were  written  in  Greek;  and  while  they 
were  regarded  by  some  of  the  more  conservative  of 
of  the  Jews  in  Egypt  as  inferior  to  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets,  they  were  generally  ranked  with  the  Hagio- 
grapha  as  sacred  writings.  This  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  they  were  mingled  indiscriminately  with 
these  books  of  the  older  Scriptures.  You  know  that 
I  am  now  speaking  of  the  Apocryphal  books  which 
you  find  in  some  of  your  old  Bibles,  between  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments.  These  were  the  later  books 
contained  in  the  Septuagint  and  not  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible.  But  they  were  not  sorted  out  hy  themselves 
in  the  Septuagint;  they  were  interspersed  through  the 
other  books  as  of  equal  value.  Thus  in  the  Vatican 
Bible,  of  which  we  shall  learn  more  by  and  by, 
Esdras  first  and  second  succeeded  the  Chronicles;  To- 
bet  and  Judith  are  between  Nehemiah  and  Esther;  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon  and  Sirach  follow  Solomon's 
Song;  Baruch  is  next  to  Jeremiah;  Daniel  is  followed 
by  Susanna  and  Bell  and  the  Dragon,  and  the  collec- 
tion closed  with  the  three  books  of  Maccabees. 

"All  the  old  manuscripts  of  the  Bible  w^hich  we  pos- 
sess— those  which  are  regarded  as  above  all  others  sa- 
cred and  authoritative — contain  these  apocryphal 
writings  thus  intermingled  with  the  books  of  our  Can- 
on. It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  to  the  Alexandrian 
Jews  these  later  books  were  Sacred  Scriptures;  and  it 
is  certain  also  that    our    Lord    and    his  Apostles  used 


HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON.  369 

the  collection  which  contained  these  books." — Who 
Wrote  the  Bible?  pp.  303-305. 

Mr.  Gladden  makes  a  semi-attack  on  some  of 
the  Old  Testament  Books  as  follows: 

"When  we  are  asked  what  are  our  reasons  for  believ- 
ing that  Esther  and  Ecclesiastes  and  Solomon's  Song 
are  sacred  books  and  ought  to  be  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Canon,  let  us  answer:  It  is  not  because  any 
prophet  or  inspired  person  adjudged  them  to  be  sacred 
for  no  such  person  had  anything  to  say  about  them; 
c  is  not  because  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  indorsed 
them,  for  they  do  not  even  mention  them;  it  is  not 
because  they  held  a  place  in  Sacred  Scriptures  used  by 
our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  for  their  position  in  that 
collection  was  in  dispute  at  that  time;  it  is  because 
the  chief  priests  and  scribes  who  rejected  Christ  pro- 
nounced them  sacred.  The  external  authority  of  these 
books  reduces  them  to  exactly  this.  Those  who  insist 
that  all  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  are  of  equal  value 
and  authority,  and  that  a  questioning  of  the  sacred- 
ness  of  one  book  casts  doubt  upon  the  whole  collec- 
tion, ought  to  look  these  facts  in  the  face  and  see  on 
what  a  slender  thread  they  suspend  the  Bible  which 
they  so  highly  value.  The  later  books,  says  one, 
'have  been  delivered  to  us;  they  have  their  use  and 
value,  which  is  to  be  ascertained  by  a  frank  and  rev- 
erent study  of  the  text  themselves;  but  those  who  in- 
sist on  placing  them  on  the  same  footing  of  undisputed 
authority'  with  the  law,  the  prophets,  and  the  Psalms,, 
to  which  our  Lord  bears  direct  testimony,  and  so 
make  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  Canon  depend  on  its 
weakest  part,  sacrifice  the  true  strength  of  the  evidence 
on  which  the  Old  Testament  is  received  by  Christians." 
pp.  310,  311. 

As  has  been  indicated,  the  Jewish   canon  was 


370     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

divided  into  three  departments;  the  Law  the 
Prophets  and  the  Hagiog^raphia,  or  the  writings. 
In  their  estimation  the  Law  was  of  the  most  im- 
portance; the  Prophets  came  next;  then  the 
Writings;  that  is;  the  books  oi""  Ruth,  Job,  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Solomon,  Lamen- 
tations, Daniel,  Esther,  Ezra,  Chronicles,  were 
considered  of  least  importance  and  authority. 
This  third  division  was  a  later  addition  to  the 
canon,  which  may  have  been  the  main  reason 
why  it  was  esteemed  so  lightly.  The  later  the 
scripture  the  smaller  importance  was  -  attached 
to  it.  It  was  not  I  think  until  in  the  fifth  cen- 
tury after  Christ  that  the  Gospels  and  the  writ- 
ings of  the  apostles  were  considered  as  being 
as  sacred  as  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  On 
this  the  Encj^clopedia  Britannica  has  the  follow- 
ing: 

"The  threefold  division  of  the  Canon,  indicating  three 
stages  in  its  formation,  has  continued.  Josephiis,  in- 
deed, gives  another,  based  on  the  nature  of  the  separ- 
ate MSS.  We  learn  nothing  from  him  of  its  history, 
which  is  somewhat  remarkable  considering  that  he 
did  not  live  two  centuries  after  the  last  work  had 
been  added.  The  account  of  the  Canon's  final  arrange- 
ment w^as  unknown  to  him.  The  nuntber  of  the  boctks 
was  variously  estimated.  Josephus -gives  twenty-two, 
which  was  the  usual  number  among  Christian  writers 
in  the  second,  third  and  fourth  centuries,  having  been 
derived  from  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet.  Ori- 
gen,  Jerome  and  others  have  it.  It  continued  longest 
among  the  teachers  of  the  Greek  Church,  and  is  even 
in  Nicephorus's  Stichometry.    The  enumeration  in  ques- 


HISTORY   OF  THE  CANON.  371 

tion  had  Rtith  with  Judges,  and  Lamentations  with 
Jeremiah.  In  Epiphanius,  the  number  twenty-seven  is 
made  by  taking  the  alphabet  enlarged  with  the  five 
final  letters,  and  dividing  Samuel,  Kings  and  Chroni- 
cles into  two  books  each  The  Talmud  has  twenty- 
four,  which  originated  in  the  Greek  Alphabet,  and  prob- 
ably proceeded  from  Alexandria.  After  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  former  prophets,  which  are  in  the  usual  order, 
it  gives  Jeremiah  as  the  first  of  the  latter,  succeeded  by 
Ezekiel  and  Isaiah  with  the  twelve  minor  prophets." 

Here  we  find  that  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  was  not  fixed  in  Josephus'  day; 
Josephus  was  born  in  about  the  3^car  37  A.  D. 
When  the  facts  come  to  light  it  is  found  that  it 
was  neither  the  prophets  nor  the  apostles  that 
made  our  Canon.  The  men  who  told  us  what 
to  put  in  and  what  to  leave  out  of  our  Bibles 
were,  to  say  the  least,  as  ignorant  as  the  aver- 
age Christian  of  today.  In  fact  the  speakers 
and  writers  who  figured  in  the  New  Testament 
referred  to  the  Apocrj^phal  parts  of  our  Bible  as 
though  thej.^  were  equally  authoritative  with  the 
other  portions  to  which  they  referred. 

The  Encyclopedia  Britannica  says: 

"The  writings  of  the  Ne^r  Testament  show  their  au- 
thor's acquaintance  with  the  Apocrj'phal  books.  They 
have  expressions  of  ideas  derived  from  them.  Stier 
collected  102  passages  wdiich  bear  some  resemblance 
to  others  in  the  Apocrypha;  but  they  needed  sifting, 
were  cut  down  to  a  smaller  number  by  Bleek.  They 
are  James  i.  19.  From  Syrach  v.  11,  and  iv.  29;  I 
Peter  i.  6,  7,  from  Wisdom  iii.  3-7;  Heb.  xi.  34,  35, 
from  II  Maccabees  vi.  1- 18-42;  Heb  i.  3,  from  Wisdom 
vii.  26,  etc.;  Ko.  xi.  20-32,  from  Wisdom  xiii.  15;    Ro. 


372     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

-ix.  21;  from  Wisdom  xv.  7;  Eph.  vi.  13-17;  from  v. 
18-20;  I  Cor.  ii.  10,  etc.,  from  Judith  viii.  14.  Others 
.are  less  probable." 

Further  on  this  writer  saj^s: 

"Jude  quotes  Enoch,  an  Apocryphal  wo^k  not  in  the 
Alexandrian  Canon;  so  that  he,  at  least,  had  no  rigid 
notions  about  the  difference  of  canonical  and  uncan- 
•onical  writings." 

The  above  is  true;  it  is  also  true  that  the 
Church  Fathers,  including  the  apostolic  fathers 
used  the  Apocryphal  Old  Testament  writings 
exactly  as  they  used  those  now  regarded  as  can- 
onical. There  is  much  testimony  on  this  point, 
but  I  will  quote  only  one  of  them;  it  comes  from 
the  same  authority  so  often  quoted  in  this  book 
— The  Ency^clopedia  Britannica.  Every  Quota- 
tion thus  far  made  will  be  found  under  the  head- 
ing, Canon. 

"The  early  fathers  used  the  Greek  Bible,  as  almost 
iiU  of  them  were  ignorant  of  the  Hebrew.  Thus  re- 
;«tricted,  they  naturally  considered  its  parts  alike,  cit- 
ing apocryphal  and  canonical  in  the  same  way.  Ac- 
cordingly Ireneus,  (202  quotes  Baruch  under  the  name 
of  'Jeremiah  the  prophet,'  and  the  additions  to  Daniel 
as  'Daniel  the  prophet.'  Clement  of  Alexandria  (220) 
uses  the  apocryphal  books  like  the  canonical  ones,  for 
-explanation  and  proof  indiscriminately.  He  is  fond  of 
referring  to  Baruch,  which  he  quotes  upwards  of 
twentA'-four  times  in  the  second  book  of  hks  Fed agogus^ 
;and  in  a  manner  to  show  that  he  esteemed  it  as  high- 
ly as  many  other  ])arts  of  the  Old  Testament.  A  pas- 
isage  from  Baruch  is  introduced  by  the  phrase  'the  di- 
vine scripture  says;'  and  another  from  Tobit  by  'Scrip- 
ture has  briefly  signified  this,  saying.'    Tertullian  C220) 


HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON.  S73 

quotes  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  expressly  as  Solomon's^ 
and  introduces  Sirach  b}:  'As  it  is  written.'  He  citeS' 
Baruch  as  Jeremiah.  He  also  believed  in  the  authentic- 
ity of  the  book  of  Enoch  and  defends  it  at  some 
length.  C3'prian  often  cites  the  Greek  additions  to  the 
Palestinian  Canon.  He  introduces  Tobet  with  the 
words,  'as  it  is  written'  or  'divine  Scripture  teaches, 
saying;'  and  Wisdom,  w4th  'the  Holy  Script  shows  by 
Solomon.'  The  African  fathers  followed  the  Alexandrian^ 
Canon  without  scruple." 

In  393,  and  also  in  397  councils  were  held  irr 
Hix3po,  in  which  the  Canon  was  discussed.  The 
books  agreed  on  as  constituting  the  inspired 
Scriptures  includes  all  the  books  of  our  Old 
Testament;  and  besides  these  it  contains  The 
Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Ecclesiasticus,  Tobit,  Ju- 
dith and  First  and  Second  Maccabees.  This 
council  had  the  sanction  of  the  good  St.  Augus- 
tine who  was  present  to  give  personal  direction 
to  all  its  deliberations. 

This  Canon  was  authoritative  until  the  coun- 
cil of  Trent  in  1546,  which  adopted  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  as  we  have  them  now,  or 
rather  as  the  Catholics  and  the  Greek  church 
have  them  now,  with  fourteen  of  the  Apocry- 
phal  books  included.  Today  a  Holy  Catholic 
curse  rests  upon  every  one  who  fails  to  accept 
the  Canon  as  there  made.  The  Protestants  com- 
pleted their  Canon  sometime  between  1647  and 
1657,  at  Westminster.    Of  this  more,  further  orir 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CANON» 

It   is   not   easy  to   separate   these  Canons    as 


374      THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

thoroughly  as  I  would  like,  but  they  went  to 
work  on  the  Old  Testament  Canon  500  years 
before  Christ,  and  did  not  begin  on  the  New 
Testament  Canon  until  200  years  A.  D.  From 
that  time  forward  the  work  of  both  went 
on  together.  As  before  indicated,  the  older  a 
book  v/as  the  more  authority  it  had.  For  that 
reason  the  Old  Testament  was  much  more  au- 
thoritative in  the  early  church  than  in  the  new. 

It  would  be  dry  and  unprofitable  reading  to 
follow  all  the  canon  makers  and  Christian  coun- 
cils between  the  second  and  sixteenth  centuries. 
I  will  state  a  few  things  briefly  and  spare  the 
student  much  laborious  and  almost  useless  re- 
search. Between  the  periods  above  named  wre 
had  almost  as  many  canons  as  Canon  makers. 
Almost  every  bishop  made  his  own  Canon. 

Finally  the  Catholic  church,,  at  a  council  of 
Trent,  in  the  year  1546,  made  a  canon  which 
consisted  of  eighty  books;  that  is  the  sixty-six 
books  used  by  Protestants,  and  fourteen  Apoc- 
ryphal books.  As  this  was  authoritative,  it 
sentenced  to  damnation  all  who  would  not  re- 
ceive the  list  there  proclaimed  as  being  authori- 
tative. Their  anathema  read  as  follows:  **If 
any  one  will  not  receive  as  sacred  and  authori- 
tative the  whole  books  with  all  their  parts,  let 
him  be  accursed." 

Seventy-nine  3^ ears  afterwards,  in  1638,  the 
Greek  Catholic  church  adopted  the  same  Canon; 
then  fort3^-four  years  after  that,  in  1672,  in  a 
council  held  at  Jerusalem  it  re-adopted  it.    Thus 


HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON.  375 

one  of  the  great  churches,  mistakenly  called 
Catholic  was  without  an  authoritative  Bible 
for  OYC^  1,500  years  and  the  others  for  over 
1,600  years. 

The  Pi'otestants  had  no  authorized  Canon  until 
they  made  one  at  Westminster  about  the  j-ear 
1650.  This  was  done  in  connection  with  the 
making  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  the  Assembi3^'s  Larger  and  Shorter  Cate- 
chism. This  assembly  brought  the  curse  of  the 
great  Catholic  church  upon  itself  by  rejecting 
fourteen  of  its  inspired  books,  and  making  a 
Qp^on  of  its  own.  After  giving  a  list  of  the 
books    in    the    Bible    as  we    have  them,  it  adds: 

"The  bonks  called  Apocryphal  are  not  of  divine 
inspiration,  and  no  part  of  the  Canon,  and  of 
no  authority  in  the  church,  nor  to  be  approved 
or  made  use  of  otherwise  than  as  human  writ- 
ings." 

These  three  councils  or  synods  show  at  what 
period  in  the  world's  history  the  Bible  became 
the  "vehicle,"  as  the  Confession  of  Faith  says 
of  **the  w^hole  council  of  God."  Though  the 
Bible  was  immediately  inspired  by  God,  and  by 
his  singular  care  and  providence  k-ept  ''pure  in  aH 
ages,"  the  world  had  searched  over  tw^o  thous- 
and years,  from  Ezra  until  this  Westminst'er  As- 
sembly before  it  found  it  out.  Now,  happily, 
the  * 'chaff  is  severed  from  the  w^heat"  of  this 
miraculously  preserved  book,  which  "has  been 
kept  pure"— "miraculously  preserved  in  all  ages." 

The  Christian  world  went  through  over  fifteen 


376     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

hundred  years  of  debates,  quarrels  and  fights 
over  what  was  and  was  not  the  Bible,  before  it 
agreed  to  disagree.  It  would  require  a  volume 
to  bring  all  these  facts  to  light. 

During  the  first  two  hundred  years  the  battle 
raged  between  the  Pauline  and  the  Petrine 
Christians.  The  Petrines  rejected  all  the  writ- 
ings of  St.  Paul.  During  this  time  there  was 
only  individual  Canons.  Notwithstanding  my 
determination  to  be  brief,  and  to  quote  as  little 
from  others  as  possible,  I  feel  that  this  point 
is  so  important  I  must  make  one  quota- 
tion from  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica.  Vol.  v., 
p.  7,  says: 

"No  New  Testament  Canon,  except  a  partial  and 
unauthoritative  one  existed  till  the  latter  half  of  the 
second  century;  that  is,  till  the  idea  of  a  Catholic 
church  began  to  be  entertained.  The  Ebionites,  or 
Jewish  Christians  had  their  favorite  Gospels  and  Acts. 
The  Gospel  of  Matthew  was  highly  prized  by  them, 
existing  as  it  did  in  various  recensions.  Other  docu- 
ments, such  as  the  Revelation  of  John,  and  the  preach- 
ing of  Peter,  (Jewish-Christian  history  subsequently 
re-written  and  emploj^ed  in  the  Clementine's  Recog- 
nitions and  Homilies)  were  also  in  esteem.  Even  so 
late  as  170-175,  Hegesippus,  a  Jewish  Christian  used 
the  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  and  despised 
Paid's  writings,  in  conformity  to  the  leading  principle 
of  the  party  to  wdiich  he  belonged,  viz.,  the  identity 
of  Jesus'  w^ords  with  the  Old  Testament.  The  Clem- 
entine Homilies,  (161-168)  used  the  four  Canonical 
Gospels,  even  the  fourth,  which  they  assign  to  the 
Apostle  John.    The   Gospel,    according   to   the    Eg3^p- 


HISTORY  OF  THE   CANON.  377 

tians,  was  also  emploA-ed.  Paul's  lipistles  were  reject- 
ed, of  course,  as  well  as  the  Acts,  since  the  Apostle 
of  the  Gentiles  was  pointed  at  in  Simon  Magus, 
whom  Peter  re-futcs.  It  is,  therefore,  obvious  that  a 
collection  of  the  New  Testament  writings  could  make 
little  progress  among  the  Ebionites  of  the  second  cen- 
tur3\  Their  reverence  for  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 
hindered  another  Canon.  Amoiag  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians the  formation  of  a  Canon  took  place  more  rap- 
idly, though  Judiac  influences  retarded  it  even  there. 
After  Paul's  Epistles  were  interchanged  between 
churohes  a  few  of  them  would  soon  be  put  together. 
A  col'lection  of  this  kind  was  implied  in  II.  Pet.  iii.  16." 

I  think  no  really  authoritative  Canon  was 
made  until  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, when  Constantine  appointed  Eusebeus  to 
give  ■♦■rhe  world  a  Canon,  whic4i  he  did.  He  left 
the  Apocah^pse  out  of  his  list.  The  most  of  the 
Canons  before  this  one  rejected  the  book  of  He- 
brews, II.  Peter,  the  Second  and  Third  Epistles 
of  John  and  the  Epistle  of  Jude.  Many  of  them 
contained  the  Epistle  of  Iler-mas,  the  Revel^ation 
of  Petsr,  the  Acts  of  Paul,  and  other  books  now 
rejected. 

About  every  ?oi5inMl  from  this  on  had  more  or 
less  to  do  w^ith  making  a^d  unmaking  Cations*. 
That  of  Laodicea  in  the  year  363  adopt6d  that 
of  Eusebeus,  except  that  it  said  nothing  of  the 
seven  Catholic  Epistles. 

In  895  Amphtlochius  wrote  agakist  the  book 
of  Hebrews  and  the  Apocalypse,  as  being  spuri- 
ous. 

It   is  weH   known   that    Martin  Luther  trans- 


378     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

lated  the  Bible  into  his  own  language.  He  ac- 
cepted no  Canon  that  the  world  has  ever  ac- 
knowledged, either  before  or  since  his  da^/.  He 
translated  and  put  into  his  Bible  all  of  the  now 
Canonical  books  of  either  the  Old  or  New  Testa- 
ment. Beside  these  his  Bible  contained  the 
books  of  Judith,  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Tobet, 
Sirach,  Bartich,  First  and  Second  Maccabees,  the 
Greek  additionals  to  Esther  and  Daniel,  with 
the  pra3^er  of  Manasseli. 

He  writes  a  preface  to  most  of  these  books, 
in  which  he  freely  expresses  his  opinion  of  them. 
Maccabees  he  thinks  about  equal  to  the  othet 
books  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  and  not  unworthy 
to  be  reckoned  among  them.  Of  Wisdom  he  had 
some  dotibts.  Of  Sirach  he  said:  ''It  is  a  right 
good  book,  proceeding  from  a  wise  man."  He 
does  not  think  so  much  of  Baruch  or  Macca- 
bees. The  book  of  Esther  he  thought  ought  to 
be  rejected. 

Few  Protestant  ministers,  or  few  even  of  the 
Lutheran  clergy  would  approve  of  Luther's 
opinions  of  some  of  the  New  Testament  books. 
He  thought  the  book  of  Hebrews  was  written 
by  a  learned  man,  but  not  by  Paul  nor  any 
other  apostle.  The  Apocalypse  he  said,  *'was 
neither  apostolic  nor  prophetic."  It  was  one 
of  the  books  he  would  have  tossed  into  the 
Elbe.  The  Epistle  of  James  was  **unapostolic" 
— "an  Epistle  of  straw."  The  Epistle  of  Jude  he 
said,  '*did  not  proceed  from  an  apostle."  He 
considered    that    somebodv  made    it    out  of  the 


HISTORY  OF  THE   CANON.  379 

Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  it  was  a  bad  job. 

Other  early  reformers  followed  in  Luther's 
wake.  Zwingii  asserted  that  the  Apoealj-pse 
was  not  a  Bible  book.  Ecolanipadius  rejected 
more  of  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment than  did  either  Luther  or  Zwingii.  Calvin 
did  not  believe  in  Hebrews,  Second  Peter,  nor 
the  Apocah^pse. 

Here  1  must  leave  the  matter  of  the  Canon; 
if  I  have  succeeded  in  giving  the  student  a 
glimpse  of  how  the  Bible  was  made  I  have  done 
all  I  expected. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

IS  THE  BIBLE  GOD's  REVELATION? 
A  FURTHER  REVIEW  OF  AFFIRMATIVE  ARGUMENTS. 

The  Dematid  and  Stipply  Argument — The  Syllogistic  Argu- 
ment— Logic  Spoiled  by  too  much  Logic — Redactio  ad 
Absitrdum  Arguments — Why  was  this  Revelation  Given 
as  a  Secret  to  a  Race  of  Brickmakers?— Was  Jesus  sent  to 
do  Away  with  a  God-given  Revelation?— Jesus  Quotes 
the  Old  Testament  to  Dispute  it — Old  Testament  could 
not  be  ''a  Revelation  to  us — Testimony  of  Rev.  T.  W. 
Chambers  and  manj'  Others — How  Hebrew  Bibles  Were 
Written — Hebrew  "loop-holes" — "Spots  on  tnie  Sun"  Ex- 
plains— Hebrew  People  Ignorant — New  Testament— Was 
Jesus  Educated? — Jesus  not  Immediately  Reported — Gos- 
pels not  Original  Documents — New  Testament  ti^e  mis- 
leading— Manuscripts  Discovered  since  the  Authorized 
Version  was  Published — Mistakes  of  Gopvists- No  Man- 
uscript Authority  for  our  Version — How  Jerome  got  in 
as  a  Bible  Maker. 

This  chapter  should  have  gone  into  the  first 
half  of  this  book  but  as  it  was  doubtful,  wheal 
these  plates  were  made,  whet-har  I  could  make 
room  for  it,  it  was  laid  aside  with  much  other 
matteis  to  be  put  in  here  if  room  could  be  found 
for  it, 

ThfC  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Dean 


IS  THE   BIBLE   GOD'S  REVELATION?        •  381 

Burgon  have  both  been  quoted  to  show  that  it 
has  been  and  still  is  Avith  some  Christians,  the 
belief  that  the  Bible  is  God's  full  and  oni3'  reve- 
lation— that  it  is  plenarily  inspired,  and  that  no 
other  word  will  ever  be  heard  from  God  until 
the  w^orld  is  summoned  to  judgment.  It  is  also 
aflirraed  that  bA^  God's  especial  care,  ("singular 
care  and  providence,"  is  the  language  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,)  this  book  has  been  kept  pure  in 
all  ages.  To  this  might  be  added  statements  to 
the  same  effect  from  Dr.  Lardner,  Bishop  Ilorne, 
Watson,  Pale^',  Rev.  David  Nelson,  and  other 
eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centur\-    theologians. 

Dale}'-,  Mcllvane  and  Patterson  all  make  argu- 
ments, whicii,  when  reduced  to  logical  forms 
must  anioimt  to  about  this:  Demand  and  sup- 
ply are  co-extensive  and  co-eternal.  One  never 
can  exist  without  the  other.  If  water  had  never 
existed  there  could  never  have  been  thirst,  or 
a  demand  for  water.  Food  is  adapted  to  the 
stomach,  and  the  stomach  to  the  work  of  digest- 
ing food.  Indeed  there  is  no  other  use  for  food 
except  to  put  into  the  stomach,  and  the  stomach 
has  no  other  function  than  to  digest  food. 

Light  would  be  of  little  use  to  us  if  we  had  no 
ej-es,  and  e^-es  would  be  useless  without  light. 
So  of  the  ear,  it  is  adapted  to  catch  soured,  and 
sound  is  absolutely  useless  where  there  is  no  ear. 

After  repeating  this  argument  in  various  forms 
of  phraseology  for  many  wearj^  pages,  the*  au- 
thors usually  bring  it  to  a  climax  with  the  as- 
sertion that  when  God  was  making  appetites  for 


382      THE    BIiVlE   AMD   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

men  he  placed  within  them  an  appetite — a  hun- 
ger or  thirst  for  a  revelation, — a  desire  to  hear 
from  God.  Inasmuch  as  this  desire  for  a  revel- 
ation is  in  man,  v^herever  found,  and  inasmuch 
as  God  has  given  man  no  desires  or  appetites 
for  which  he  has  not  provided  a  means  of  grati- 
fication, he  must  have  provided  man  with  a  rev- 
elation from  himself. 

The  argument  when  reduced  to  something  like 
a  syllogistic  formula  is  about  as  follows: 

1.  Man's  maker  has  provided  the  means  for 
the  gratification  of  his  every  appetite; 

2.  Man  has  an  appetite  for  a  revelation  from 
God; 

3.  Therefore  man's  maker  has  provided  for 
him  a  revelation. 

This  is  Logic;  I  think  it  is  good  logic;  but  log- 
ic which  proves  too  much  proves  nothing,  and 
as  this  proves  too  much  it  is  fata!  to  the  one 
who  uses  it  to  prove  the  doctrine  set  forth  in 
the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  that  the 
Bible  is  God's  only  revelation. 

The  minor  proposition  says,  man  has  an  ap- 
petite for  a  revelation  from  God;  that  would 
make  a  foundation  for  another  syllogism  wliich 
should  be  stated  about  as  follows: 

1.  Man  has  an  appetite  for  revelations  from 
the  super  mundane  world; 

2.  The  Buddhists  and  the  Brahmins  are  men; 

3.  Therefore  the  Buddhists  and  the  Brahmins 
have  an  appetite  for  revelations  from  the  super- 
mundane world. 


13   THE   TUBLE   GOD'S  REVELATION?  383 

Now  kt  the  major  proposition  become  the 
foundation  for  another  syllogistic  argument  as 
follows: 

1.  God  has  provided  for  the  gratification  of 
every  appetite  of  Brahmins,  Buddhists  and 
Christians; 

2.  Brahmins,  Buddhists  and  Christians  have 
appetites  alike  for  a  revelation  from  God; 

3.  Therefore  God  has  prepared  a  revelation 
for  Brahmins,  Buddhists  and  Christians. 

rhis  staple  Christian  argument,  under  review, 
asserts  that  the  appetite  for  a  revetation  from 
God  proves  the  existence  of  such  revelation;  if 
this  is  true  wall  not  a  similar  appetite  prov-e  the 
same  for  those  who  never  heard  of  the  Bible,  or 
of  Christianity?  If  it  does  not  then  there  is  a 
faliac\^  somewhere  in  the  learned  logic  of  these 
Christian  gentlemen.  Ho\V  w^ould  it  do  to  say? 
God  has  provided  for  humanity's  every  appe- 
tite: 

But  he  has  provided  no  revelation  for  the 
South  Sea  Islanders; 

Therefore  the  South  Sea  Islanders  are  not  hu- 
man beings. 

These  reductio  ad  ahsurdum  arguments  might 
be  followed  indefinitely,  but  I  do  not  propose  to 
pursue  them  farther. 

Does  it  not  seem  strange,  that  if  God  is,  as 
these  writers  suppose,  under  obligation  to  give 
man  a  revelation  he  did  not  see  his  duty  before 
some  evil  power  got  around  with  so  many  false 
revelations?    How  strange  that  His  Satanic  Ma- 


384     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

jesty  was  permitted  to  overload  the  most  en- 
lightened people  in  the  world  with  the  counter- 
feit so  long  before  the  genuine  existed.  Not  only 
were  there  counterfeit  Bibles,  but  think  qf  the 
Ayatars  or  saviors  who  counterfeited  our  sav- 
ior hundreds  of  years  before  he  was  born. 
Such  mysteries  as  these  are  among  the  greatest 
of  the  mj^steries  of  godliness. 

Why  did  not  God  think  of  his  duty  to  give 
man  a  revelation — a  duty  so  easily  seen  by  the 
theologians  of  todRj,  before  the  da^^s  of  Moses, 
Abraham,  or  Noah;  the  world,  these  same  good 
people  say,  was  once  destroyed  because  of  its 
wickedness.  Possibly  had  the  revelation  been 
given  which  God  was  under  obligation  to  bestow, 
that  same  wickedness,  and  the  consequent  des- 
truction of  human  life  might  have  been  averted. 

Cannot  those  who  make  these  arguments,  see 
that  their  logic  utterly  annihilates  the  idea  of 
the  Bible  being  God's  only  revelation  to  the  hu- 
man family?  At  best  if  the  Bible  is  a  revelation 
from  God  to  man  it  can  be  only  one  of  the  num- 
erous revelations  he  has  made  to  some  of  the 
numerous  families  of  man.  The  a'rgument  so  of- 
ten made  to  prove  that  the  Bible  is  God's  only 
revelation  to  man  represents  God  as  neglecting 
his  duty  to  the  human  family  until  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  years  after  he /had  sent  man  to 
the  earth,  and  billions  ujDon  billions  of  souls  had 
gone  for  want  of  such  revelation,  to  feed  the 
eternal  flames. 

Even  when  he  got  ready  to  attend  to  his  long 


IS  THE  BIBLE  GOD's   REVELATION?  385 

neglected  duty,  instead  of  revealing  himself  to 
all  men  he  called  a  few  ignorant  brickmakers 
away  from  the  nations  of  earth,  and  after  get- 
ting them  out  into  the  ^vilderness  and  swearing 
them  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  their  brothers 
and  sisters  of  other  nations  he  confided  a  part 
of  the  needed  revelation  to  them,  as  a  secret  tc 
be  kept  from  the  world.  Yet  when  this  revela- 
tion gets  out  where  other  people  can  get  hold 
of  it,  it  is  found  to  be  only  a  repetition  of  old 
laws  and  ceremonies  they  had  obtamec  from 
some  evil  source  so  many  ages  beiorc^  that  iti^ 
origin  was  lost  in  antiquity. 

But  this  is  not  the  worst  feature  of  the  cast 
After  all  his  efforts  in  that  direction,  he  did  not 
succeed  in  giving  them  a  revelation.  He  tried 
almost  constantly  for  nearly  fifteen  hundred  years, 
as  Jeremiah  says,  ''rising  up  early."  See  ]ei. 
XI.  7;  XX vi.  5;  xxxii.  33.  After  all  these  effort? 
to  give  a  revelation  he  failed.  Through  one  ol 
his  instruments  he  exclaimed  m  despair,  ''What 
could  I  have  done  for  my  vineyard  that  I  have 
not  done  in  it?  Wherefore  when  I  looked  that 
it  should  have  brought  forth  grapes  brought  it 
forth  wild  grapes."  Is.  v.  4.  In  verse  7,  he 
tells  the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Judah 
that  they  are  the  vineyard  to  which  he  refers. 

Finally  tiring  of  these  repeated  efforts  and  de- 
feats in  giving  a  revelation  to  this  people 
through  the  prophets  as  a  last  resort  he  is  rep- 
resented as  sending   his    son   to    do    away  with 


386     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

the  old,   nailing  it  to  his  cross.    See  II.   Cor.  iii. 
13-15.    Eph.  ii.  15.     Col.  ii.  14-16. 

Jesus  told  them  the  Old  was  insufficient.  He 
said:  "Except  your  righteousness  exceed  the 
righteousness  of  the  Scribes  and  the  Pharisees^ 
ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  Matt.  v.  20.  Indeed  he  told  them, 
and  so  did  his  apostles,  unless  they  have  been 
misrepresented,  that  he  was  the  w^ay — the  only 
way — that  all  who  came  before  him  were 
"thieves  and  robbers" — that  there  was  no  name 
given  under  heaven  or  among  men  whereby  men 
could  be  saved,  but  the  name  of  Jesus.  See  Jno. 
X.  8;  Acts  iv.    12. 

It  must  be  confessed  that  this  was  rather 
hard  on  Moses  and  others,  but  when  he  takes 
up  the  precepts  given  by  Moses,  or  through 
Moses,  he  quotes  them,  in  every  instance,  either 
to  amend  or  dhspute  them.  Does  he  quote  "an 
e^-e  for  an  eye  or  a  tooth  for  a  tooth?"  he 
quotes  it  not  because  he  believes  it,  but  because 
he  does  not  believe  it.  He  follows  it  with  a  dis- 
junctive conjunction  "but,"  and  adds,  "I  say 
unto  you,  resist  not  evil."     Matt.  v.  39,  40. 

When  he  quotes  the  old  saying,  "Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbor  and  hate  thine  enemy,"  he 
follows  it  with  that  same  "but,"  "I  say  unto 
/ou  love  your  enemies."  Matt.  v.  43,  44.  If  he 
quotes,  "Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,"  he 
does  so  for  the  purpose  of  adding  an  amend- 
ment: *'But  I  say  unto  3^ou  whosoever  looketh 
on  a  woman  to    lust    after   her  hath  committed 


IS  THE  BIBLE  GOD'S  REVELATION?  387 

adultery  with  her  already  in  his  heart."  Matt. 
v.  27,  28.  When  he  quotes,  ''Thou  shalt  not 
kill,"  he  carries  that  farther,  and  adds,  ''Who- 
soever is  angiy  with  his  brother  without  cause 
is  a  murderer."  Matt.  v.  21,  22.  He  quotes, 
"Thou  shalt  not  forswear  thyself,  but  shalt 
perform  iito  the  Lord  thine  oaths."  He  fol- 
lows it  with  that  same  inevitable  "but,"  and 
adds,  "I  say  unto  3'ou,  swear  not  at  all." 
Matt.  v.  33,  34. 

Whatever  the  books  of  the  Bible,  especially 
those  of  the  Old  Testament,  may  have  been  for 
those  for  whom  they  were  written,  they  cer- 
tainly  cannot  be  a  revelation  to  those  livmg  to- 
day. At  best  these  books  were  only  primer 
books,^  given  to  an  infantile  race,  and  are  not 
adapted  to  the  people  of  today.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment w.'is  written  in  languages,  v^^hich,  perhaps, 
not  a  person  on  earth  now  understands. 

I  believe  that  it  was  Geseneus,  the  great  He- 
brew Lexicographer,  who  said,  that  if  Moses' 
books  could  have  been  found  in  the  days  of 
Ezra,  or  Nehemiah,  there  was  not  a  man  in 
Israel  who  could  have  read  and  understood 
them. 

Rev.  Talbott  W.  Chambers,  in  his  "Companion 
to  the  Revised  Old  Testament,"  says,  on  pages, 
70,    71: 

"The  oldest  of  these  (documents  on  which  to  base 
the  Old  Testament,)  are  the  Targums,  which  are  sup- 
posed to  owe  their  origin  to  the  disuse  of  the  Hebrew 
tongue,  by  the  exiles  in  Babylon.  (Neh.  viii.    8.)    They 


388      THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

were  at  nist,  and  for  maii3^  years  oral.  As  miglit  be 
expected,  they  are  usually  paraphrases,  in  which  the 
ideas  of  the  translator  are  more  followed  than  those 
of  the  original  writer.  *  *  *  The  oldest  Greek  version 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  is  the  one  known  as  the 
Septufigint,  a  name  derived  from  the  worthless  tradi- 
tion that  it  was  made  b3''  a  company  of  seventy  Jews, 
at  the  request  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  who  was 
gathering  a  librar^^  The  truth  about  its  origin  is,  that 
Alexandrifi  hcoame  after  the  dispersion,  a  centre  of 
Jewish  poptilation,  and  afterwafd,  of  religions  but  as 
time  went  on  the  Jews  lost  coniniand  of  their  own 
language,  and  therefore  required  a  translation  of  their 
sacred  books  into  Greek." 

A^  this  point  is  an  important  one,  I  will  quote 
For  my  readers  a  few  such  excerpts  as  I  happen 
to  have  at  hand.  Henry  Craik  says,  in  the  "Ec- 
clesiastical Magazine,"  for  April  1881. 

"))■'  "(508,  at  the  early  dawn  of  the  reformation, 
John  Reuchlin  compiled  the  first  grammar  of  an\^  real 
value,  (of  the  Hebrew  language,)  excepting  such  as 
bad  at  an  earlier  period  been  composed  by  Jewish 
grammarians." 

The  Christian  Spe(>tator  Vol.  ili.   p.    232    said: 

"It  is  not  generalh'  known  that  the  ancient  Hebrew 
language,  ^uch  as  was  used  i-n  the  older  parts  of  the 
Bible,  was  written  in  solid  blocks  of  consonant  let- 
ters. There  was,  perhaps,  not  a  vowel  used  in  the 
whole  Old  Testament." 

Again, 

*'The  vowel  points  are  not  very  ancient.  The  most 
sacred  copies  of  the  Scriptures  which  the  Jews  deposi- 
ted in  their  S3inagogues,  are,  and  ever  have  been> 
without  points."     Ibid  237. 


389 

This  of  course  rendered  reading  difficult,  and 
somewhat  uncertain.  This  might  be  illustrated 
in  the  use  of  hundreds  of  different  words.  The 
word  BRD,  if  the  English  language  was  spelled 
and  pronounced  as  was  the  Hebrew  in  the  Bible 
could  be  translated  bride,  bard,  bird,  bared  bor- 
ed or  board.  The  first  verse  of  the  twenty-third 
Psalm  would  read;  THLRDSMSHPHRDSHL- 
LNTWNT.  Here  we  must  be  guided  mostly  by 
conjecture  in  dividing  this  into  words.  Then 
again,  we  cannot  know  what  vowels  to  put  in 
nor  where  to  place  them. 

Bishop  Marsh  said,  in  his  fourteenth  lecture. 

"The  Old  Testament  is  the  only  work  which  re- 
mains in  ancient  Hebrew,  nor  have  we  a  lexicon  or 
glossary  composed  while  it  was  yet  a  living  lan- 
guage." 

Godfrey  Higgins  said: 

"I  am  quite  certain  that  I  shall  be  able  to  prove 
chat  ever^'  letter  of  the  Hebrew  language  has  four, 
and  probabl}^  five  meanings." 

LeClerk  affirms,  in  his  "Sentium,"  p.  156,  that: 

'The  learned  merely  guess  at  the  sense  of  the  Old 
Testament,  in  an  infinity  of  places,  which  produces  a 
prodigious  number  of  discordant  interpretations." 

St.  Jerome,  in  his  Commentary-  on  the  fortieth 
chapter  of  Ezekiel  saj^s:  ''When  we  translate  He- 
brew into  Latin  we  are  sometimes  guided  by 
conjecture." 

As  an  illustration  of  the  difference  of  opinion 
what  the  Hebrew  means  I  quote  the  following 
from  The  Inquirer's  Text  Book. 

"Our  version  saA's  (of  Noah's  ark,)  it  was    made    of 


390     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Gopher  wood;  Ouklehos'  translates  it,  as  made  of  ce- 
dar; Castelus  says  it  was  juniper;  the  Arabic  commen- 
tators declare  that  it  was  boxwood;  the  Persians  say 
that  it  was  pine  w^ood;  the  celebrated  Bochart  affirms 
that  it  was  ebony,  and  Dr.  Geddes  affirms  that  it  was 
wicker  work;  while  Dawson  says  that  it  was  made  of 
bulrushes  and  daubed  with  slime." 

Giles'    Hebrew    and    Christian     Records    says: 

''Vowel  points  were  not  invented  before  the  second 
century.  The  present  Hebrew  letters  are  later  than 
the  Christian  era." 

I  am  painfully  aware  that  this  is  irksome,  yet 
I  cannot  feel  quite  willing  to  leave  it  without  a 
few  more  words  confirmatory  of  what  has  been 
said.  Once  upon  a  time  I  held  a  several  day's 
discussion  with  a  shrewd  and  learned  theologian. 
I  laid  m^^  plans  to  entrap  my  opponent;  he  ap- 
parently did  not  see  the  snare  I  had  laid  for  him, 
and,  of  course  walked  into  it.  When  I  sprung  a 
text  on  him  which  was  to  forever  fasten  him,  he 
looked  at  me  with  all  the  non  chalance  imagin- 
able, and  asked  me  if  I  did  not  know  that  there 
were  as  many  as  fourteen  different  ways  of  get- 
ting out  of  the  difficulty  through  other  transla- 
tions of  the  Hebrew?  You  may  judge  that  I 
was  astonished;  I  could  have  endured  a  round 
dozen  of  Hebrew  ways  of  getting  out  of  a  diflS- 
culty,  but  when  he  told  me  that  there  were  four- 
teen I  allowed  him  to  escape.  I  would  give  up 
any  text  in  the  Bible  rather  than  to  undertake 
to  stop  fourteen  Hebrew  loop-holes. 

When  I  was  much  younger  than  I  am  now  and 
felt  that  what  the  world  calls  infidelity  must  be 


391 

put  down  at  any  cost,  I  got  kold  of  an  anony- 
mously written  book,  called  ''Spots  on  the  Sun." 
This  book  claimed  to  harmonize  every  difficulty 
in  understanding  the  Bible.  I  read  it  with  great 
interest;  I  found  according  to  its  statements  it 
was  neither  the  devil  nor  a  serpent  that  tempted 
grandmother  Eve.  The  old  lady  was  temp^xl  by 
a  monkey,  an  ape,  or  an  orangoutang.  T'  sun 
did  not  stand  still  for  Joshua;  it  was  only  the 
color  bearers  of  Joshua's  army.  Samson  never 
caught  any  foxes  and  set  their  tails  on  fire;  the 
^word  rendered  fox  should  be  rendered  sheaf,  and 
neither  the  foxes  nor  the  sheaves  ran  and  burned 
the  green  corn.  It  was  the  fire  that  ran  and 
burned  the  ripened  grain.  Samson  turned  the 
sheaves  head  to  head  instead  of  turning  the  foxes 
tail  to  tail. 

Ahaziah  was  not  two  years  older  than  his 
father  as  is  represented  in  II  Chron.  xxii.  2.  In- 
stead of  that  he  was  eighteen,  j^ears  younger. 
A  fly  sat  down  upon  the  freshly  written  text, 
and  left  a  naught3^  speck,  which  changed  the 
young  man's  age  from  twent^'-two  to  forty-two. 
While  there  are  so  many  infidel  flies ^in  the  world, 
bent  on  trying  to  make  the  Bible  false,  I  w^ould 
a  little  prefer  that  a  revelation  given  for  my 
benefit  be  given  in  a  language  not  so  easily  af- 
fected by  fly  specks. 

This  is  enough;  with  dozens  of  arguments  sim- 
ilar to  those  quoted  above,  the  author  of  this 
book  attempted  to  prove  to  the  world  that  he 
was  about  the  onlv  Hebrew  scholar  since  Moses 


392     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

went  to  Mount  Nebo.  The  only  thing  he  really 
did  prove  was,  th^t  the  Hebrew  language  was 
the  wrong  language  in  which  to  make  a  revela- 
tion calculated  to  benefit  the  people  of  any  age 
since  at  least  five  centuries  before  Christ. 

I  might  here  add  that  the  Hebrew  people  are 
not  the  special  people  v.'ith  vvdiich  to  entrust  a 
Divine  Revelation.  They  were  the  most  ignorant 
people,  who,  in  their  day  made  any  pretensions 
to  knowledge  or  civilization. 

riiey  had  no  mechanics  among  them.  I  Sam. 
xiii.  17-21,  mfornis  us  that  they  had  no  smith 
throughout  the  land  of  Israel;  but  that  the  Is- 
raelites went  down  to  the  Philistines  when  they 
wanted  plowshares,  coulters  and  axes  sharpened. 
About  the  only  tool  they  used  which  required 
any  mechanical  skill  was  a  file  with  which  to 
sharpen  a  mattock,  or  an  ox  goad. 

When  they  wanted  to  build  a  meeting  house — 
a  residence  for  their  God,  they  had  to  go  to  the 
heathens  to  find  mechanics  to  do  the  work.  See 
I  Kin.  V.  6.  They  were  so  superstitious  that 
they  were  afraid  of  thunder.  Once  when  it  thun- 
dered they  thought  that  Samuel  produced  it. 
After  they  went  into  Babylonish  captivity,  and 
then  learned  of  the  existence  of  ange'ls,  they 
thought  when  it  thundered  it  was  the  voice 
of  an  angel.    Jno.  xii.  29. 

Please  remember,  I  have  no  word  to  say 
against  the  Bible.  I  am  only  giving  a  few  ad- 
ditional   reasons    why    I    do    not    believe    that 


IS  THE  BIBLE   GOD's  REVELATION?  393 

God  gave  a  perfect  revelation  for  us  to  that 
ignorant  people.  I  believe  that  each  people  has 
its  voice  of  inspiration,  which  if  followed  consci- 
entiously will  lead  its  possessor  into  the  regions 
of  higher  wisdom. 

It  is  acknowledged  that  many  of  the  difficul- 
ties here  mentioned  regarding  the  Old  Testa- 
ment do  not  apply  to  the  New;  but  new  difii- 
culties  arise  in  their  place; — difficulties,  which, 
like  Banquo's  ghost,  refuse  to  ''down,"  even  at 
the  bidding  of  theology. 

A  man  said,  not  long  ago,  that  he  fully  be- 
lieved that  Jesus  Christ  wa'ote  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Of  course  this  was  an  aggravated  case 
of  superstitious  ignorance.  The  only  ^vriting 
that  Jesus  is  reported  to  have  done,  was  at  the 
time  he  wrote  on  the  ground  at  the  time  the 
woman  taken  in  the  very  act  of  adultery  was 
brought  before  liim.  Indeed  that  ^vriting  was 
only  scratching  as  the  Greek  signifies.  Possibh^ 
Jesus  did  not  know  his  alphabet.  I  have  heard 
it  hinted,  and  heard  John  vii.  15  quoted  to 
prove  that  Jesus  could  neither  write  nor  read. 
This  text  sa3^s:  "How  knoweth  this  man  let- 
ters, having  never  learned?"  I  really  think  the 
text  justifies  the  conclusion,  but  as  there  are 
other  texts  which  indicate  that  he  could  read, 
(Luke  iv.  17.,)  I  prefer  to  think  that  the  word 
''letters,"  in  this  instance  was  used  to  signify  a 
profundity  of  learning  to  w^hich  the  Jews  suppos- 
ed he  had  not  attained.  We  often  speak  of  one 
who  has  read  much,  as  a  man  of  letters.     This 


394     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

text  rather  signifies  that  Jesus  was  not  a  man 
of  great  learning. 

To  return  to  the  case  under  discussion,  the 
writer  of  the  book  of  John  did  not  think  what 
Jesus  here  wrote  was  of  enough  importance  to 
give  it  to  his  readers.  The  truth  is,  as  I  have 
elsewhere  shown,  the  Airhole  story  is  exceedingly 
apocryphal. 

We  are  left  entirely  without  reports  of  what 
Jesus  said,  which  were  made  by  men  on  the 
ground.  Even  though  the  writers  of  the  life  of 
Jesus  had  been  eye-witnesses  of  what  they  re- 
corded they  wrote  them  out  from  memory  many 
years  after  the  death  of  Jesus.  If  any  one  sup- 
poses that  such  a  S3^stem  of  reporting  can  be 
an3'thing  like  exact  let  him  try  to  call  up  and 
report  today  a  discourse  to  which  he  listened 
twent3^-five  ^^ears  since. 

But  there  is  no  possil^Ility  that  one  of  the 
writers  of  either  of  the  synoptic  Gospels  ever  saw 
Jesus.  These  Gospels  were  not  written  by  those 
whose  names  they  bear.  They  are  Gospels  ac- 
cording to  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and  John;  not 
Gospels  written  by  them.  That  is  they  were 
written  out  after  these  men  had  passed  away, 
and  written  according  to  the  writers'  memory 
of  their  preaching.  In  a  former  lesson  it  was 
shown  that  Luke  does  not  pretend  to  be  writing 
an  original  history.  *'Many,"  had  written  before 
him;  and  inasmuch  as  they  had  done  so,  he 
would  undertake,  not  to  tell  a  new  story,  but 
to  tell  that  which  he  had  learned    from    the   be- 


IS  THE   BIBLE   god's  REVELATION?  395 

ginning,  and  from  "eye-witnesses."  He  then  said 
that  Theophilus  had  been  instructed  in  the  things 
in  which  he  would  further  instruct  him.  How 
any  one  can  suppose  that  Luke  supposed  himself 
to  be  writing  an  original  history  I  cannot  tell. 

Indeed  a  great  writer  has  said:  ''All  the  writ- 
ers of  the  gospels  drew  their  materials  from  one 
common  original." 

Even  the  title  page  of  the  New  Testament 
:ontains  a  misleading  statement:  ''The  New 
Testament  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ; 
translated  out  of  the  Original  Greek;  and  with 
the  former  translations  diligently  compared  and 
revised." 

The  above  is  not  true;  our  New  Testament 
has  no  connection  with  the  Original  Greek;  the 
original  would  be  the  autograph  manuscripts  of 
the  Apostles.  The  best  Greek  manuscripts  we 
have  are  only  copies  of  copies  which  were  copies 
of  copies,  which  somebody  supposed  he  copied 
from  some  one  who  supposed  he  copied  from 
some  one  who  copied  from  Paul.  Our  Greek 
manuscripts  certainh^  get  no  nearer  back  to  the 
original  than  is  here  represented. 

As  the  King  James'  translation  was  made  in 
1611,  if  there  were  any  Greek  manuscripts  for 
the  whole  New  Testament  they  had  not  been 
discovered. 

The  whole  New  Testament,  as  we  have  it,  ex- 
isted only  in  Latin.  And  when  Beza,  and  Eras- 
mus wanted  a  Greek  Testament  they  had  no  al- 


396     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

tcrnative  but  to  translate  certain  portions  of  it 
from  the  Latin  Vulgate  back  into  Greek.  This 
looks  very  little  like  the  ''original  Greek." 

The  preface  to  the  "Cmpanion  of  the  Revised 
Version  of  the  New  Testament;"  in  its  apology 
for  its  departure  from  the  authorized  version 
said: 

"Not  one  of  these  alterations  appeared  without 
what  appeared  to  a  majority  of  the  Revisers  an  ade- 
quate reason.  They  are  all  to  be  traced  to  one  or  the 
other  of  two  causes.  Either  a  change  of  the  Greek 
text  which  it  was  found  necessary  to  adopt,  or  to  a 
change  of  translation  which  stricter  fidelity  to  the 
original  seemed  jto  reqinre.  Under  these  two  heads, 
all  necessary  explanations  (so  far  as  space  permitted,) 
will  be  found  in  the  following  p.ages." 

Here  it  will  be  noticed,  is  a  change  in  the 
Greek  text.  Certainly  no  one  would  change  the 
''Original  Greek," — the  writings  of  the  inspired 
apostles.  What  then  does  this  mean?  I  answer 
that  it  means  that  other  manuscripts  have  been 
discovered,  some  of  which  are  supposed  to  be 
older  and  more  nearly  correct  than  any  manu- 
script known  to  exist  at  the  time  the  transla- 
tion was  made,  which  bears  on  its  title  page 
the  false  statement  that  it  was  "translated  out 
of  the  original  Greek." 

On  p.  4,  this  "Companion"  quotes  from  Scrive- 
ner's Introduction  as  foUow^s: 

"It  has  been  so  ordered  that  vastly  more  copies  of 
the  sacred  volume  have  come  down  to  us  in  manu- 
script than  of  any  other  ancient  writing:.  We  learn 
from  the  best  authorities  on  the  subject  that  no  fewer 


than  1,700  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  in 
whole  or  in  parts,  are  known  to  the  scholars  of  our 
day." 

Here  are  1,700  manuscript  copies  of  the  New 
Testament,  *'in  whole  or  in  part,"  and  these 
manuscripts  differ  in  their  reading  one  hundred 
and  Hfty  thousand  times.  How  does  this  happen? 
They  were  copied  from  each  other,  or  from  older 
manuscripts.  The  copyists  were  all  of  them  fal- 
lible men — exceedingly  fallible;  and  their  fallibility 
has  left  its  mark  all  over    our  ''infallible"  Bible. 

We  have  just  learned  that  not  less  than  1,700 
manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  "in  whole 
or  in  part,"  are  known  to  scholars.  How  many 
of  these  are  "in  whole,"  is  a  question  of  more 
than  ordinary  interest.  The  same  work  from 
which  the  foregoing  quotations    are  made,  says: 

"And  now  we  have  reached  the  interesting  point  of 
this  sketch  as  to  the  history  of  the  printed  text  of 
the  New  Testament,  just  given,  which  has  led  us  very 
near  the  date  at  which  the  authorized  version  began 
to  be  made.  It  was  commenced  about  1604,  when 
the  above  named  Greek  texts  were,  in  one  form  or 
another,  generally  circulated.  Which  of  them,  we  ask 
with  eagerness,  formed  the  original  from  which  our 
common  English  version  was  derived?  To  this  ques- 
tion the  answer  is,  that  Beza's  edition,  of  15S9,  was 
the  one  usually  followed.  It  had  been  based  on 
Stephen's  edition  of  1550,  and  that  again  had  been 
derived  from  the  fourth  edition  of  Erasmus,  published 
in  1527.  Such  is  the  parentage  of  the  authorized  ver- 
sion; Beza,  Stephens,  Erasmus.  What  manuscript  au- 
thority, let  us  ask,  is  here  represented? 


398  THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

Clark's  Commentaries  do  not  happen  to  be  just 
now  where  I  can  place  my  hands  upon  them, 
but  I  can  from  memory  give  the  substance  of 
what  he  says  on  the  subject.  He  says  that 
many  of  the  copyists  of  these  manuscripts  were 
ignorant  transcribers,  not  knowing  a  letter  they 
wrote.  They  simply  sought  to  imitate  the  let- 
ters they  were  copying.  Thus  many  marginal 
notes  and  glossaries  crept  unnoticed  into  their 
copies,  the  writers  supposing  that  these  com- 
mentaries were  parts  of  what  they  were  to  copy. 

Thus  he  informs  us  that  Jerome  wrote  on  his 
cop3^  of  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  ''There  are 
three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father, 
the  Word  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these  three 
are  one."  An  ignorant  transcriber  in  copying 
this  text  wrote  Jerome's  remarks  in  as  a  pari 
of  the  text.  Tlius  the  one  great  text  for  the 
prool  of  the  trinity  found  its  way  into  the  Bible. 

That  these  glossaries  thus  became  parts  of 
the  Bil^le  in  the  way  here  mentioned  is  proved 
by  the  authors  of  the  Revised  Bible.  On  pages 
7,  8,  of  the  ''Companion,"  Mr  Roberts  says: 

"Mere  glosses,  doxologies,  or  liturgical  formularies 
written  on  the  margin  of  manuscripts  were  sometimes 
inadYe;-tentIy  introduced  by  transcribers  into  the 
text.  *  *  The  doxology  of  the  Lord's  prayer 
Matt.  vi.  13,  which  seems  to  have  been  quite  un- 
known to  the  early  fathers  of  the  church,  probabh 
crept  into  the  church  in  the  same  manner.  And  iehen 
can  be  hardly  a  doubt  that  the  ecclesiastical  formula, 
Acts  viii.  37,  found  in  many  manuscripts,  but  certainly 
not  genuine,  owed  its  place  to  a  similar  mistake," 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

OTHER  SACRED   BOOKS. 

Bible  Ma1<ers  ever  at  Work— Ours  more  than  an  Average 
Bible — A  Few  Bibles  Named — The  Number  of  Religionists 
in  the  World— Reverence  for  Other  Bibles— Facts  Stated 
by  Prof.  Jowett— Prof.  Max  Muller  on  the  same— Jewish 
Opposition  to  Septua^^int  Bible— Other  Jewish  Legends— 
Philo's  interpretations— The  Good  in  Other  Bibles— Our 
Religious  Fasts,  Feasts,  Forms  and  Ceremonies  long  Be- 
fore Christ— Was  Cliristianity  drawn  from  Buddhism?— A 
Heathen  Psalm— The  God  of  Pythagoras— The  Religion  of 
Zoroaster— Extracts  from  Parsee  Catechism — Prof  James 
T.  Bixby  on  Religion  of  Persians — Max  Mailer's  Opinion 
— Golden  Texts  from  Confucius — No  Drunken  or  Warring 
Buddhists — Buddhistic  Missionaries — Did  John  and  Jesus 
Study  Buddhism? — Legends  of  the  Birth  of  Siddhartha 
and  of  Jesus — Rejoicings  in  Celestial  and  Terrestrial  Na- 
ture— Asita  and  Simeon — Origin  of  the  Gospel  of  Buddha 
— Similarities  of  Buddha  and  Jesus — Beatitudes  of  Bud- 
dha and  Jesus — How  Men  are  Defiled — Both  on  Lov- 
ing your  Eneuiies — Similarity  on  Other  Points — How 
Disciples  of  Buddha  must  Live — Buddha  on  Good  and 
Evil — Ten  Things  to  be  Avoided — Five  Buddhistic  Com- 
mandments— Buddha  On  Thought — Socrates'  Prayer — 
His  Dying  Speech — Some  things  from  the  Koran. 

I  promised  that  before  taking  my  final  leave 
of  the  subject  of  Bibles  I  would  put  in  at  least 
one  chapter  on   some  of  the   many  other  Bibles 


400  THE  BIBLE  AND   THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

there  are  in  the  world.  I  have  several  times 
hinted  that  the  inspiring  power  which  produces 
Bibles  has  ever  been  at  work;  it  undoubtedly 
worked  millions  of  years  before  man  had  devel- 
oped to  the  position  where  he  could  write  down 
the  result  of  his  inspirations.  It  will  continue 
to  -work  as  long  as  man  has  aspirations  for 
that  which  cannot  be  gratified  by  the  moral. 
Man  ^11  3^et  reach  the  position  where  he  ean 
talk  with  those  who  are  invisible  to  common 
mortals  as  perfectly  as  we  now  speak  to  each 
other  through  a  telephone. 

As  there  are  differences  in  portions  of  our  Bi- 
ble, some  parts  of  it  being  more  important  and 
more  true  than  others,  so  there  are  differences 
in  all  Bibles;  some  of  them  will  average  better 
than  others.  All  have  their  more  and  their  less 
inspired  passages. 

While  it  is  probable  that  there  is  not  a  saered 
book  in  existence  ^which  does  not  contain  as 
good  things  as  ours,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
world  ever  had  one  which  had  more  good  things 
or  one  that  has  fewer  things  which  have  not 
been  worthy  to  preserve  in  a  sacred  book.  No 
Bible  has  ever  been  written  which  did  not  con- 
tain much  matter  that  was  unworthy  to  hand 
down  to  the  ages.  To  this  our  Bible  is  no  ex- 
ception. Yet  I  must  think  that  our  Bible  has  a 
greater  number  of  good '  things  and  fewer 
worthless  things  than  any  other  that  I  have 
read. 


OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS.  401 

The  following  is  about  the  status  of  the  relig- 
ions of  the  world: 

Of  the  various  great  divisions  in  Christianity 
there  are  reckoned  to  be  three  hundred  and 
twenty-seven  millions. 

The  following  is  as  near  as  can  be  estimated 
the  proportion  of  devotees  of  other  religions: 

Of  Jews,  seven  millions. 

Of  Shintoos,  fourteen  millions. 

Of  Confucians,  eighty  millions. 

Of  Mohammedans,  two  hundred  and  ten  mil- 
lions. 

Of  Brahmins,  one  hundred  and  seventy-live 
millions. 

Of  Parsees,  one  hundred  millions. 

Of  Buddhists,  £ve  hundred  millions. 

Here  it  is  discovered  that  scarcely  one-third 
of  the  world  is  Christian.  The  Buddhists,  with- 
out any  God  to  help  them,  or  an^^  assistance 
from  the  ''comforter," — the  paraclete,  have  made 
about  one  hundred  and  sevent^^-five  millions  of 
converts  more  than  all  the  Christians  in  the 
world  have  made  to  the  various  branches  of 
Christianity. 

Are  all  of  these  on  the  road  to  perdition? 
These  people  did  not  choose  the  place  of  their 
birth,  their  education  or  their  religion;  the3^  did 
not  have  an  opportunit3'  to  learn  anything 
about  our  religion.  They  are,  to  say  the  least, 
as  honest  as  we  are;  they  have  prayed  as  earn- 
estly, fasted  as  much  and  endured  as  much  for 
what  they    deem  to   be    truth    as    we    have  for 


402     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

our  faith.  Is  it  possible  that  we  can  shrink 
OHrselves  into  a  position  where  we  can  beheve 
any  such  thing. 

If  a  knowledge  of  Christianity  is  essential  to 
future  bliss,  why,  when  they  have  sought  so 
earnestly  for  light  has  it  been  withheld  from 
them?  '%ight  is  sown  for  the  righteous."  *'He 
that  would  do  his  will  shall  knojv  the  doctrine." 
See  Psa.  xcvii;  John  vii.  17.  The  fact  is, 
there  is  light  for  those  who  earnestly  seek  after 
it,  wherever  they  nia^^  be  found.  This  light  has 
ciihninated  in  bringing  into  existence  many  Bi- 
bles, somewhat  similar  to  the  Bibles  v^^e  read 
every  day. 

If  we  were  to  take  out  of  our  estimate  of 
Christians  all  in  Christian  countries  who  have 
no  faith  or  interest  in  Christianity  there  would 
be  a  fearful  fallmg  off  irom  the  estimate  made 
on  the  subject. 

It  is  estimated  that  in  New  York  City  alone 
are  one  million  and  three  hundred  thousand 
people  who  never  go  into  a  church.  That  is  to 
say  there  are  more  non-Christians  in  New  York 
alone,  counting  every  one  a  Christian  who  ever 
goes  to  church,  than  there  are  people  in  any  one 
city  in  the  United  States  except  Chicago.  The 
same  authority  says:  There  is  one  ward  in  the 
city  of  Brooklyn  containing  twenty-five  thous- 
and inhabitants  that  has  not  a  single  church. 
This,  for  the  ''City  of  Churches,"  is  an  unfavor- 
able showing. 

Nor  are  these  heathen  people  to  whom  I  have 


OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS.  403 

referred  without  their    sacred    books;  prominent 
among"  their  Bible  may  be  mentioned: 

1.  The  Sacred  Vedas  of  the  Brahmins. 

2.  The  Trlpitaka,  of  the  Buddhists. 

3.  The  Zend-Avesta,  of  the  Persians,  or  Par- 
sees. 

4.  The  Sacred  Books  of  the  Chinese,  called 
the  Five  Kings. 

5.  The  Tao-Te-King,  or  Sacred  books  of  Lao- 
Tse. 

6.  Al  Koran,  of  the  Mohammedans. 

Beside  these  the  Egyptians  had  their  "Book 
of  the  Dead."  The  Assyrians,  the  Greeks  and 
others  had  their  Revelations,  concerning  which 
little  is  known. 

Rev.  J.  T.  Sunderland  sa3^s: 

"I  speak  with  sufficient  accuracy,  perhaps,  when  I 
name  the  more  important  sacred  books,  or  Bibles  of 
the  world.— The  Brahmin  Bible,  The  Buddhist  Bible, 
The  Persian  or  Zoroastrian  Bible,  the  two  Chinese 
Bibles,  the  Mohammedan  Bible;  and  added  to  these 
the  Jewish  Bible,  (our  Old  Testament)  and  the  Chris- 
tian Bible;  (our  Old  and  New  Testaments.)" 

In  this  connection,  it  might  not  be  amiss  to 
refer  to  the  ''Apostles'  Creed;"  the  very  name  of 
which  has  caused  thousands  to  reverence  it  as 
nian3^  do  the  Bible.  It  is  not  known  exactly 
where  this  Creed  originated;  perhaps  with  St. 
Augustine. 

The  nations  of  earth  have  all  revered  their  sacred 
books  as  many  Christian  devotees  do  their  Bible. 

Prof.  Jowett  says: 

"All  nations  who  have  ancient  writings  have  endeav- 


404     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

ored  to  read  in  tliem  the  riddle  of  the  past.  The  Brah- 
min, repeating  his  Vedic  Hymns,  sees  them  pervaded 
by  a  thousand  meanings,  which  have  been  handed 
down  by  tradition;  the  one  of  which  he  is  ignorant  is 
that  which  we  perceive  to  be  the  true  one." 

Erof.  Max  MuUer  sa3^s: 

"Greater  violence  is  done  to  sacred  writings  thati  to 
any  other  relic  of  ancient  literature.  Ideas  grow  and 
change,  yet  each  generation  finds  its  own  ideas  in  the 
sacred  pages  of  its  early  prophets.  Passages  in  the 
Veda,  and  in  the  Zend-Avesta  which  do  not  bear  on 
religious  or  philosophical  doctrines  are  generally  ex- 
plained simply  and  naturally,  even  by  the  latest  of  na- 
tive commentators.  But  as  soon  as  any  word  or  sen- 
tence can  be  so  turned  as  to  support  a  doctrine  how- 
ever modern,  or  a  precept,  however  irrational,  the 
simplest  phrases  are  tortured  and  mangled  till  at  last 
they  are  made  to  yield  their  assent  to  ideas  the  most 
foreign  to  the  minds  of  the  authors  of  the  Yeda  and 
Zend-Avesta." 

Thus  in  all  ages  has  been  interpreted  into  books 
what  interpreters  have  wanted  in  them;  and  out 
of  them  what  they  did  not  want  in  them.  The 
same  has  ever  been  true  of  our  Bible. 

Theodore  Parker,  in  his  discourse  on  Religion, 
said: 

"The  later  Greeks  regard  the  writings  of  Homer 
with  the  same  superstitious  veneration,  and  inter- 
preted into  them  all  sorts  of  doctrines  which  could 
have  had  no  place  in  the  mind  of  the  writer.  For  in- 
stance they  found  therein  the  Neptunian,  and  the  Vul- 
canian  theory;  the  sphericity  of  the  earth;  the  doctrines 
of  Democritus,  Herodotus  and  Socrates  and  Plato,  in 
in  their  turn." 


OTHER   SACRKD   BOOKS.  405 

The  fact  is,  the  divine  spirit  working  in  every 
age  and  nation  has  been  instrumental  in  giving 
the  world  its  sacred  books;  superstition  has 
made  fetisches  of  them;  and  then  they  have  tor- 
tured them  into  sustaining  any  and  every  theory 
which  happened  to  demand  a  hearing.  Beside 
that,  everything  which  could  be  tortured  into  a 
miracle,  or  a  special  providence  has  been  used 
to  make  them  divine. 

In  the  third  century  before  Christ,  the  Old 
Testament  was,  under  Ptolem^^  Philadelphus, 
translated  into  Greek  and  placed  in  the  Alexan- 
drian Librar\\  Many  of  the  Hebrews  believing 
that  they  were  God's  famih%  and  his  only  family, 
thought  it  a  sacriligious  act  to  translate  their 
family  book  into  the  language  of  the  Gentile 
*'dogs."  Various  things,  such  as  the  darkening 
of  the  sun,  and  other  celestial  antics  occurred, 
to  prove  that  God  was  extremely  angry  on  ac- 
count of  his  only  book — a  kind  of  family  letter 
being  now  made  the  propert\^  of  those  on  the 
other  side  of  the  "the  middle  wall  of  partition." 

The  other  party  of  the  Jews,  not  to  be  beaten 
by  a  few  celestial  miracles,  published  that  seven- 
ty-two Hebrews,  six  from  each  of  the  twelve 
tribes  undertook  the  work — that  they  were  each 
locked  in  a  separate  cell,  where  the}^  remained 
just  sevent3'-two  days.  When  they  came  out 
each  one  of  them  had  all  their  scriptures  trans- 
lated; these  translations  did  not  differ  in  a  single 
word.  They  further  went  on  to  say  that  each 
passage  has  just  seventy-two  different  meanings. 


406     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

and  that  God  himself  spends  the  first  three 
hours  of  every  day  in  studying  the  scriptures. 
All  this  will  be  found  with  proper  foot-note  re- 
ferences in  Andrew  D.  White's — "Warfare  of  Sci- 
ence."   Vol.  II.  pp.  292-295. 

As  an  illustration  of  their  extreme  interpreta- 
tions of  their  Scriptures  I  quote  once  more  from 
^'Warfare  of  Science."    Vol  II,  p.  294. 

'•Among  the  great,  early  masters  in  this  evolution 
of  allegory,  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  Jews  and  Christ- 
ians, was  Philo;  by  him  its  use  came  in  as  never  be- 
fore. The  four  streams  of  the  Garden  of  Eden,  thus 
became  the  four  virtues;  Abraham's  country  and  kin- 
dred, from  which  he  was  commanded  to  depart,  the 
human  body  and  its  members;  the  five  cities  of  Sodom, 
the  five  senses;  the  Euphrates,  correction  of  manners. 
By  Philo  and  his  compeers  even  the  most  significant 
words  and  phrases,  and  those  especially,  were  held  to 
conceal  the  most  precious  meaning." 

I  could  find  Christian  interpretations  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  equally  as  wild  and  far- 
fetched as  the  above;  but  this  is  enough. 

I  have  intimated  that  these  sacred  books  all, 
when  stripped  of  the  glossaries  which  have  been 
thrown  around  them,  have  in  them  much  that 
is  morally  and  spiritually  uplifting.  Mr.  Sunder- 
land says: 

"Sacred  books  will  not  be  thrown  away;  they  con- 
tain truths  of  too  much  value,  and  they  have  too  cen- 
tral a  place  in  religious  history  and  education  of  the 
race  for  that.  But  everything  indicates  that  in  Christ- 
ian lands,  they  will  more  and  more  be  relegated  to 
their   proper   place,  as  servants  of  man;  they  will  not 


OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS.  40T 

mticli  longer  be  permitted  to  fetter  his  inteflect  and 
dwarf  his  life." 

Again  Mr.  Sunderland  sayst 

"He  wko  knows  oiih^  one  of  the  religions'  of  the 
world,  knows  none.  All  sacred  books  are  related*  All- 
historic  religions  are  sisters." 

Thos.  W.  Higginson  says: 

"Neither  faith  nor  love  nor  truth, "nor  disinterestedness^ 
nor  forgiveness,  nor  patience,  nor  peace,  nor  equality, 
^or  education,  nor  missionary  effort,  nor  prayer,  nor 
honesty,  nor  sentiment  of  brotherhood,  nor  reverence 
for  womaa,  nor  the  spirit  of  humilit}^  nor  the  fact  of 
martyrdom,  nor  any  other  good  thing  is  monopolized 
by  any  form  of  faith.  All  religions  recognize  more  or 
less  remotely  these  principles;'  all  ao  something  to  ex- 
emplif\%  all  to  dishonor  them." 

Again,  in  speaking  of  the  different  heathen  re- 
ligions, he  says: 

"We  constanth^  meet  (in  thtm,)  the  same  leading 
features.  We  find  the  same  religious  institutions, 
monks,  missionaries,  priests,  pilgrims;  the  same  ritual 
— praA-ers,  liturgies,  sacrifices;  the  same  implements, — 
frankincense,  candles,  hoh'-water,  relics,  amulets,  vot- 
ive offerings;  the  same  symbol  of  the  cross,  the  ser- 
pent, the  all-seeing  eye,  the  halo  of  raj's;  the  same 
prophecies  and  miracles — the  dead  restored  and  evil 
spirits  cast  out;  the  same  holy  da^'s — for  Easter  and 
Christmas  were  kept  as  spring  and  autumn  festivals,^ 
centuries  before  our  era,  by  Egyptians,  Saxons,  Ro- 
mans. The  same  artistic  designs  for  mother  and 
child  stand  depicted  not  onW  in  the:  temples  of 
Europe,  but  in  those  of  Arabia,  Egypt  and  Thibet." 

Prof.  MaK  Muller  was  once  bitterly  opposed 
to  any  recognition  of  other  religions,  and  especi- 


408     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

ally  of  heathen  religions  having  any  connec- 
tion with  the  Christian  rehgion;  but  he  went 
into  a  most  thorough  investigation;  studying 
them  in  their  own  lands  and  languages,  until 
he  is  the  most  profound  scholar  on  the  reHgions 
in  the  Orient,  in  the  world.  He  became  con- 
vinced that  much  of  the  so-called  Christian  re- 
ligion came  from  these  despised  heathens.  His 
language  is  that  '^Christianity  originated  under 
Buddhistic  influences."  He  said,  in  a  lecture  be- 
fore the  Royal  Societ}^,  London: 

"Some  of  the  coincidences  between  Buddhism  and 
Christianity  belong  to  the  former.  They  include  con- 
fessions, fastings,  celibacy  of  the  priesthood,  and  even 
rosaries,  and,  as  they  were  honored  in  India  before 
the  beginning  of  our  era,  it  followed  that  if  they  were 
borrowed,  the  borrowers  were  Christians." 

Again  he  said: 

"How,  it  may  be  asked,  had  a  knowledge  of  these 
things  spread?  Through  the  fact  that  Buddhism,  in 
its  essence,  was  a  missionary  religion.  Buddhist  mis- 
sionaries were  sent  to  every  part  of  the  known  world 
in  the  third  century  before  Christ." 

Here  I  will  leave  further  discussion  of  this  sub- 
ject until  we  come  to  an  examination  of  Bud- 
dhism. 

All  the  foregoing  quotations  show  that  those 
who  have  investigated  the  matter  not  only  find 
some  good  in  all  the  heathen  religions,  but  find 
them  almost  exactly  the  same  as  ours.  Their 
feasts,  fasts,  sacraments,  and  even  their  ethical 
code — all  seem  to  have  the  same  origin,  and 
to  be  one  in  purpose  with  ours. 


OTHER   SACRED   BOOKS.  409 

Here  is  a  Psalm  from  the  Rig  Veda,  or  Hindu 
Bible.  I  give  it  as  translated  by  Prof.  Max 
Muller: 

"Who  is  the  God  to  whom  we  shall  ofTcr  our  sacri- 
fices? 

Kc  who  gives  life;  he  who  gives  strength;  whose 
command  all  the  bright  gods  revere;  whose  shadow  is 
immortaHty. 

Who  is  the  God  to  whom  we  shall  offer  sacrifices? 

He  who  through  his  power  is  the  one  king  of  the 
breathing  and  awakening  world — who  governs  all, 
man  and  beast. 

Who  is  the  God  to  whom  we  shall  offer  sacrifices? 

He  w^hose  greatness  these  snowy  mountains  proclaim; 
whose  greatness  the  sea  proclaims;  he  through  whom 
the  skj'  is  bright  and  the  earth  firm;  he  through  whom 
the  heaven  was  established — nay  the  highest  heaven 
he  to  wdiom  heaven  and  earth  standing  firm  b}-  his  will, 
look  up. 

Who  is  the  God  to  whom  we  shall  offer  our  sacrifices? 

He  who  by  his  might  looked  ever  over  the  water- 
clouds— the  clouds  which  gave  strength  and  light  the 
sacrifices.     He  who,  alone  is  God  above  all  gods." 

This  beautiful  Psalm  shows  that  the  Hindus 
had  really  but  one  supreme  God.  If  they  wor- 
shipped others,  they  were  onl3^  tutelary-  deities, 
such  as  all  Christians  worship. 

Rev.  Rob't.  Taylor,  in  his  Diegesis,  p.  142  re- 
fers to  the  Grecians  as  having  higher  ideas  of 
God  than  manj^  Christians  have  3-et  reached.  He 
quotes  P^'thagoras  as  saving: 

"God  is  neither  the  object  of  sense  nor  subject  of  pas- 
sion, but  invisible,  and  only  intelligible,  and  supremely 
intelligent.  *  *  *  He  is  the  Universal  spirit  that  diffuses 


410     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

itself  over  all  nature.  All  beings  receive  their  life  from 
him.  There  is  but  one  only  God;  who  is  not,  as  some 
are  apt  to  imagine,  seated  above  the  world,  beyond  the 
orb  of  the  universe;  but,  being  himself  all  in  all,  he  sees 
all  the  beings  that  fill  his  immensitj'-,  the  only  princi- 
ple, the  light  of  heaven,  the  father  of  all.  Pie  produces 
everything.  He  orders  and  disposes  of  all  things.  He 
is  the  reason,  the  life  and  the  motion  of  all  things." 

This  God  I  confess  I  like  better  than  the  one 
of  whom  that  excellent  Christian  Dr.  Watts 
sang: 

"His  nostrils  breathe  out  fiery  streams, 

He  is  a  consuming  fire; 
His  jealous  eyes  his  wrath  inflames, 

And  raise  his  vengeance  higher." 

Dr.  John  William  Draper,, in  talking  of  Persia 
saj-^s: 

"She  followed  the  monotheism  of  Zoroaster.  *  *  *  At 
the  time  of  the  Macedonian  expedition,  she  recognized 
one  universal  intelligence,  the  Creator,  Preserver  and 
Governor  of  all  things,  the  most  holy  essence  of  truth, 
the  giver  of  all  good.  He  was  not  to  be  represented 
by  any  image  or  any  graven  form." 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  Parsee 
Catechism,  translated  by  Dadabahai  Naoroji, 
Liverpool,  1^61. 

"Whom  do  we,  of  the  Zarthosti  Community  believe 
in?  We  believe  in  only  one  God,  and  do  not  believe  in 
any  besides  him. 

Who  is  that  one  God? 

That  God  who  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth, 
the  angels,  the  stars,  the  sun,  the  moon,  the  fire,  the 
water,  or  all  the  four  elements,  and  all  things    of  the 


OTHER  SACRED   BOOKS. 


411 


two  worlds;— that  God  we  believe  in.  Him  we  wor- 
ship, invoke  and  adore. 

Do  we  not  believe  in  any  other  God? 

Whoever  believes  in  any  other  God  is  an  infidel,  and 
shall  sufifer  piinishtnent  in  hell. 

What  is  the  form  of  our  God? 

Oar  God  has  neither  face  nor  form,  color  nor  shape, 
nor  fixed  place.  There  is  no  other  like  him.  He  is 
singly  sudi  a  glory  that  we  cannot  praise  or  describe 
him;  nor  our  niitid  comprehend  him. 

What  is  our  Religion? 

Our  Religion  is  the  worship  of  God. 

Whence  did  we  receive  our  religion? 

God's  true  prophet,  the  true  Zurthost  (Zoroa.^ter) 
isphantoman  Auoshirvvan,  brought  the  religion  to  us 
from  God." 

I  have  many  pages  of  quotations  which  I  have 
taken  from  Prof.  James  T.  Bixby,  on  the  religion 
of  the  Parsees.  Mr.  Bixby  traveled  and  lived 
among  the  Parsees,  but  as  I  am  more  interested 
in  the  Bibles  of  the  heathen  than  I  am  in  the 
testimonies  of  those  who  lived  among  them,  I 
will  make  only  one  short  extract.    He  says: 

"Zoroaster's  work  was  to  rally  all  the  honest  and  in- 
dnstrious  minded  about  the  standard  of  their  god 
Ahura-Masda,  and  lead  them  to  forswear  solemnly  all 
those  deeds  of  violence  and  rapine  which  destroyed 
civil  order  and  made  the  pursuit  of  agriculture  impos- 
sible. Thej'-  must  abjure  also,  as  works  of  devils  those 
intoxicating  soma  draughts,  that  inflamed  the  pas- 
sions of  men.  *  *  *  It  is  considered  a  mortal  sin  among 
the  Parsees  to  see  evil  and  not  warn  him  who  does  it; 
or  to  fail  to  give  alms  to  the  needy;  and  a  pauper  was 
never  known  among  them." 


412     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

I  will  make  one  more  short  quotation  from  the 
Parsee  creed  from  memory. 

"To  buy  grain  when  it  is  cheap,  and  to  hold  it  in  or- 
der tQ  make  it  dear  is  the  worst  sin  a  man  can  com- 
mit, because  it  is  the  one  sin  which  leads  to  all  others.' 

Tiiat  text  should  be  printed  in    golden   letters , 
and  hung  in  every  Board  of  Trade  head  quarters 
in  the  United  States.      We  Christians  can   learn 
much  from  our  heathen  neighbors. 

Max  MuUer,  who  has  investigated  the  heathen 
religions  more,  perhaps,  than  any  other  man  in 
the  world  truly  says: 

"There  is  no  religion  which  does  not  say,  'do  good, 
and  avoid  evil.'  I  wish  that  I  could  read  you  ex- 
tracts I  have  collected  from  the  sacred  books  of  the 
ancient  world — grains  of  truth,  more  precious  to  me 
than  grains  of  gold;  prayers  so  simple  and  so  true 
that  we  could  all  join  in  them." 

Mr.  Muller  speaks  of  the  simplicity  of  their 
prayers.  One  of  the  praj^ers  recorded  in  the 
Avesta  is  as  follows: 

**May  we  attain  to  union  with  thy  purity  for  all 
eternity. 

CONFUCIANISM. 

Confucius,  the  Chinese  philosopher  was  one  of 
the  Bible  makers  of  the  heathens.  He  lived  and 
taught  six  hundred  jtRrs  before  Christ.  When 
asked  by  one  of  his  disciples,  *'Is  there  any  one 
rule,  which  may  serve  for  all  of  one's  life?"  he 
replied,  '*is  not  the  word  reciprocity  such  a  word? 
What  you  do  not  want  done  to  yourself  do  not 
do  to  others." 

Confucius  said; 


OTHER   SACRED   BOOKS.  413 

"In  the  way  of  superior  man  there  are  four  things, 
to  none  of  which  I  have  attained.  To  serve  my  father 
as  I  would  have  my  son  serve  me;  to  serve  my  prince 
as  I  would  have  my  minister  serve  me;  and  to  serve 
my  elder  brother  as  I  would  have  my  younger  brother 
serve  mc;  and  to  offer  first  to  friends  what  one  requires 
of  them." 

Chung  Yung  xiii.  4.  The  following  are  among 
the  good  sa\'ings  of  this  great  philosopher: 

"Filial  piety  is  the  beginning  of  virtue,  and  brother- 
ly love  is  the  sequel  of  virtue." 

"Happy  union  with  wife  and  children  is  like  the 
music  of  lutes  anil  harps;  and  when  there  is  concord 
among  brclhcni  the  music  is  delightful  and  enduring." 

"No  virtue  is  higher  than  love  to  all  men  and  there 
is  no  loftier  aim  in  Government  than  to  profit  all  men." 

"Hold  faithfulness  and  sincerity  as  first  principles.  I 
do  not  know  how  a  man  is  to  get  On  without  faith- 
fulness. ***  Worship  as  though  deity  were  present." 

"Have  no  depraved  thoughts." 

"Our  passions  shut  up  our  souls  against  God." 
BUDDHISM. 

It  has  been  seen  that  there  are  five  hundred 
million  Buddhists  in  the  world.  This  is  almost 
one-third  of  the  the  entire  human  famil_v.  Tlris 
people  has  lived  on  earth  for  twenLy-live  hundred 
years  without  war;  in  all  that  time  they  have 
had  few,  if  any  drunkards.  Their  Gospel,  which 
is  now  translated  into  our  language,  comes  more 
direct  than  any  of  the  Christian  Gospels;  and  as 
Max  MuUer,  and  other  able  writers  show  that 
our  gospel  comes  almost  directly  from  Buddhism, 
it  seems  necessary  to  devote  more    space    to    an 


414      THE   BIBLE  AND   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM, 

Examination    of    that    religion    than   to    others. 

Fifty  years  ago  but  little  was  known  of  Bud- 
dhism; but  the  more  people  acquaint  themselves 
with  it,  as  they  have  been  able  to  do  through 
the  investigations  of  Prof.  Max  Muller  and  others, 
the  better  they  have  liked  it  and  the  more  they 
have  been  convinced  that  it  has  done  much  to- 
ward shaping  the  religions  of  the  world. 

We  have  been  informed  that  the  Buddhistic  re- 
ligion was  a  missionary  religion — that  nearly 
four  hundred  years  before  Christ,  it  sent  mission- 
aries into  all  the  world. 

Dr.  Draper,  in  his  ''Intellectual  Development  of 
Europe,"  says:  "King  Asoka  sent  Buddhist 
missionaries  over  every  part  of  the  v^orld." 

Dr.  Bunsen  says:  "The  Christian  Legends  and 
traditions,  and  forms,  are  to  a  great  extent 
based  on  Buddhism." 

Subhadra  Bickshu,  in  his  Buddhistic  Catechism 
said: 

"In  fact  the  life  of  Jesus,  as  told  by  the  evangelists, 
corresponds  so  strikingly,  in  its  essential  points  with 
the  life  of  Buddha,  that  one  is  involuntarily  forced  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  Legends  of  the  Buddha  have 
served  the  evangelist  writers  as  a  model  for  their  life 
of  Jesus." 

In  Luke  i.  80,  the  writer  says  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist: "The  child  grew  and  waxed  strong  in  spir- 
it, and  was  in  the  deserts  'till  the  day  of  his 
showing  unto  Israel." 

The  Buddhists  say  he  crossed  over  into  India, 
and  there  became  a  student  of  Buddhism.     The 


OTHER  SACRED   BOOKS.  415 

same  has  been  said  of  Jesus.  The  story  was 
that  he  was  carried  down  into  Eg\^pt  when  an 
infant.  He  was  back  in  Jerusalem  and  asking 
and  answering  questions  in  the  temple  when  he 
was  only  twelve  years  old;  after  that  he  never 
showed  himself  to  the  public  until  as  Luke  says: 
"he  began  to  be  about  thirty  years  old."  The 
"Unknown  life  of  Jesus,"  says  on  page  187, 
that  "he  spent  that  eighteen  3^ears  in  the  study 
of  Buddhism."  He  surely  could  not  have  spent 
his  life  to  a  better  purpose;  and  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted by  all  that  this  theory  will  solve  man^^ 
otherwise  insoluble  problems. 

Buddha  was  born  about  B.  C.  620,  and  passed 
away  about  B.  C.  547.  His  name  was,  perhaps, 
Siddhartha  Guatama.  His  father  was  a  kin^;, 
his  mother  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and  grand 
v^romen  that  ever  lived.  Many  wonderful  things 
happened  at  the  birth  of  Siddartha.  These  things 
strangely  coincided  with  what  happened  six  hun- 
dred 3^ears  afterward  at  the  birth  of  Jesus.  I  lis 
Mother's  name  was  not  Mary,  but  Ma3^a.  tie 
was  born  under  a  satin  tree,  while  his  mother 
was  on  a  journey.  Jesus  was  likewise  born 
away  from  home. 

The  "Gospel  of  Buddha"  says  that  when  Siddar- 
tha was  born  all  worlds  were  filled  with  li.i^ht; 
the  blind  received  their  sight;  the  deaf  and  duiub 
spoke  to  one  another;  the  crooked  beciime 
straight;  the  lame  walked;  prisoners  were  set  free; 
the  fires  of  hell  were  extinguished;  celestial  music 
rang   through   the    air;    the    angels  rejoiced;  the 


416      THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

cries  ol  wild  beasts  ceased,  and  all  malevolent 
beings  received  loving  hearts.  Mara,  that  is  the 
devil,  alone  was  grieved,  and  rejoiced  not. 

When  this  is  compared  with  the  birth  of  Jesus, 
it  is  easily  seen  how  one  of  these  stories  could 
be  taken  from  the  other.  Angels  sang;  the  glory 
of  the  Lord  shone  around;  angels  said  to  the 
shepherds:  "Fear  not,  I  bring  you  good  tidings 
of  great  joy,  which  shpdl  be  to  all  people."  The 
heavenly  hosts  praised  God,  and  said:  "Glory 
to  God  in  the  highest,  on  earth,  peace  and  good 
will  toward  men."     See  Luke  ii.  9-14-. 

The  story  of  Simeon  as  related  in  Luke  ii,  25- 
30,  and  of  Asita,  as  related  in  the  Gospel  of 
Buddha,  pp.  8,  9,  are  so  near  alike  that  it  is 
easily  seen  how  one  of  these  could  have  been  re- 
dacted from  the  other. 

The  "Gospel  of  Buddha,"  which  is  endorsed  by 
the  King  of  Siam,  and  all  other  Buddhists  so 
far  as  I  know,  and  which  I  purchased  from  a 
Buddhist  priest  says: 

''Now  there  was  at  this  time  in  the  Grove  Asita,  a 
rishi,  (a  prophet,  seer,  or  inspired  poet,)  leading  the 
life  of  a  hermit.  He  was  a  Brahmin  of  dignified  mein, 
famed  not  only  for  wisdom  and  scholarship,  but  also, 
for  his  skill  in  the  interpretation  of  signs.  And  the 
king  invited  him  to  see  the  Ro^^al  Child. 

"The  seer,  beholding  the  prince,  wept  and  sighed  deep- 
{y.  And  when  the  king  saw  the  tears  of  Asita  he  be- 
came alarmed  and  asked:  'Why  has  the  signt  of  my 
son  caused  thee  grief  and  pain'? 

"But  Asita's  heart  rejoiced,  and  knowing  the  king's 
mind  to  be  perplexed,  he  addressed  him,  sajdng: 


OTHER   SACRED   BOOKS.  417 

'The  king,  like  the  moon  when  full,  should  feel  great 
joy,  for  he  has  begotten  a  noble  son.  I  do  not  wor- 
ship Brahma,  but  I  worship  this  child;  and  the  gods 
in  the  temple  will  descend  from  their  places  to  honor 
and  adore  him. 

"Banish  all  anxiety  and  doubt.  The  spiritual  omens 
manifested  indicate  that  the  child  new  born  will  bring 
deliverence  to  the  whole  world. 

"Recollecting  that  I  am  old,  on  that  account  I  could 
not  hold  my  tears;  for  now  my  end  is  coming  on.  But 
this  son  of  thine  will  rule  the  world.  He  is  born  for 
the  sake  of  all  lives. 

"His  pure  teaching  will  be  like  the  shore  that  receives 
the  shipwrecked.  His  power  of  meditation  will  be  like 
the  cool  lake;  and  all  creatures  parched  with  the 
drouth  of  lust  may  freely  drink  thereof. 

"On  the  fire  of  covet ousness  he  will  cause  the  cloud 
of  his  mercy  to  rise,  so  that  the  rain  of  the  law  may 
extinguish  it. 

"The  heavy  gates  of  despondency  he  will  open,  and 
give  deliverance  to  all  creatures  ensnared  in  the  self- 
twined  messages  of  folly  and  ignorance. 

"The  king  of  the  law  has  come  forth  to  rescue  from 
bondage  all  the  poor,  the  miserable,  the  helpless. 

"When  the  roj^al  parents  heard  Asita's  words  they 
rejoiced  in  their  hearts  and  named  their  new-bom  in- 
fant Siddhartha,  that  is  he  who  has  accomplished  his 
purpose." 

This  story  of  Buddha,  was  circulated  by  king 
Asoka's  missionaries  in  the  fourth  century  before 
Jesus  was  born.  It  is  thus  hundreds  of  years 
older  than  the  story  of  Simeon,  as  reported  in 
the  "Gospel  According  to  St.  Luke."  Before 
proceeding  further  with  this    argument,    it    may 


418     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

be  well  to  say  a  few  words  about  the  origin  of 
the  Gospel  of  Buddha,  from  -which  the  most  of 
these  narratives  were  taken.  There  were  no  such 
divisions  among  the  earh^  Buddhists  as  there 
were  among  the  early  Christians,  hence  one  gos- 
pel was  all-sufficient. 

The  Gospel  of  Buddha,  was  gathered  from  his 
disciples  who  traveled  with  Buddha,  and  got  it 
from  his  own  lips.  After  Buddha's  death  these 
disciples  called  a  great  meeting,  perhaps  the 
greatest  religious  convention  the  wrorld  had  at 
that  time  ever  known.  There  they  chanted,  or 
sung  the  gospel  of  Buddha  as  some  of  us  did 
the  multiplication  table  v^hen  we  were  young, 
until  it  was  thoroughly  committed  to  memory. 

After  this  the  king  had  it  engraved  on  silver 
plates.  Then,  it  is  said  future  missionaries  were 
required  to  commit  it  to  m^emory.  Now  if  these 
missionaries  went  into  Judea,  as  history  states, 
or  if  John  and  Jesus  went  among  the  Buddhists, 
then  the  agreement  between  Buddha,  *'the  en- 
lightened teacher,"  and  Jesus,  the  annointed 
teacher,  is  easily  explained. 

As  th€  birth  of  Jesus  was  announced  to  Mary 
by  the  angel  Gabriel,  so  six  centuries  before,  the 
birth  of  Buddha,  was  announced  to  Maya,  his 
mother  by  four  angels. 

Siddhartha,  the  son  of  Maya  was  baptized  in 
the  river  Ganges;  Jesus  was  baptized  in  the  river 
Jordon.  As  Dipamkara  baptized  Buddha,  so  John 
baptized  Jesus. 

Siddhartha,    after   being   baptized    was    three 


OTHER   SACRED   BOOKS.  419 

times  tempted  by  Mara,  so  Jesus  was  three 
times  tempted  by  the  devil  after  being  led  by  the 
spirit  into  the  wilderness.  In  one  of  these  temp- 
tations, Siddhartha  was  offered  a  kingship  over 
the  whole  world;  in  Jesus'  last  temptation  he 
was  offered  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  whole  world, 
and  the  glory  of  them.  Siddhartha's  great  re- 
nunciation, in  order  to  become  a  Buddha,  that 
is  an  enlightened  teacher,  v/as  something  like  the 
renunciation  Jesus  made  in  order  to  become  a 
Messiah. 

**Do\vn  from  his  shir.ing  seat  above, 
With  joyRil  baste  he  iied; 

Entered  the  grave  in  mortal  flesh 
And  dwelt  among  the  dead." 

All  my  readers  remember  the  beatitudes  as 
announced  by  Jesus  in  Matt.  v.  3-11.  The  Beat- 
itudes as  given  by  the  Buiddha,  in  the  Gospel 
of  Buddha,  xii.  20  are  as  follows: 

"Blessed  is  he  who  understands  the  dharma.  (the 
Truth.) 

"Blessed  is  he  who  does  no  hr.rm  to  his  fellow  beings. 

"Blessed  is  he  who  overcomes  sin,  and  is  free  Irom 
passion. 

"To  the  highest  bliss  has  he  attained  who  has  con- 
quered all  selfishness  and  vanity.  He  has  become  a 
Buddha;  the  perfect  one;  the  blessed  one." 

Jesus  told  how  men  are  defiled,  not  by  that 
which  goeth  into  a  man,  but  by  that  which 
goeth  out  of  the  mouth.    See  Matt.  xv.  11,  lS-20. 

Buddha  told  how  men  are  defiled,  as  follov/s: 

"Reading  the  Vedas,  (that  is  the  Old   Hindoo   Scrip- 


420     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

tures,)  making  offerings  to  the  priests  or  sacrifices  to 
the  gods,  self-mortification  by  heat  or  cold,  and  many 
such  penances  performed  for  the  sake  of  immortality — 
these  do  not  cleanse  the  man  who  is  not  free  from  de- 
lusions. Anger,  drunkenness,  obstinacy,  bigotry,  de- 
ception, self-praise,  disparaging  others,  superciliousness 
and  evil  intentions  constitute  uncleanness,  not  verily 
the  eating  of  flesh." 

Jesus  told  us  to  love  our  enemies,  and  to  pray 
for  those  who  despitefully  use  us.     Matt.  y.  44- 

48. 

Buddha  said: 

"If  a  man,  by  causing  pain  to  others,  wishes  to  ob- 
tain pleasure  for  himself,  he,  entangled  in  the  bonds 
of  selfishness  will  never  be  free  from  hatred.  Let  a 
man  overcome  anger  by  love;  let  him  overcome  evil  by 
good;  let  him  overcome  the  greedy  by  liberality,  the 
liar  by  the  truth.  For  hatred  does  not  cease  by  hatred 
at  any  time;  hatred  ceases  by  love,  this  is  an  old  rule. 
Speak  the  truth,  do  not  yield  to  anger;  give  if  thou 
art  asked;  by  these  three  stc])s  thou  will  become  di- 
vine."   Gospel  of  Buddha.    Ivlii.  35-38. 

Buddha  promised  rest  to  the  weary,  in  almost 
the  very  language  of  Jesus.  He  told  the  ''heavy 
laden"  to  come  to  him  and  find  rest.  He  said 
he  was  "the  way,  the  truth  and  the  life."  He 
told  his  disciples  that  they  were  the  ''salt  of  the 
earth."  He  said  that  a  small  gift  had  small 
merit,  unless  it  came  from  a  poor  person.  In  the 
"Widow's  two  mites,"  Jesus  taught  the  same. 
He  told  his  friends  that  "Divine  Wisdom" — Bud- 
dha, was  "the  light  of  the  world." 

He  said:  "Guard  against  looking  on  a  woman 


OTHER  SACRED   BOOKS.  421 

with  lust.    He  that  looks  hath  broken   the  law, 
by  lusting  after  the  wife  of  another." 

Jesus  said  the  same.    Matt.  v.  27-28. 

Buddha  told  his  disciples  to  * 'pluck  out  an  eye 
if  it  offended  them."  He  said,  *4t  is  more  bles- 
sed to  give  than  to  receive."  The  writer  of  the 
book  of  Acts  represents  Paul  as  quoting  these 
same  words  from  "The  Lord,  Jesus."  The  fact 
is,  if  Jesus  used  the  words  at  all,  the  writers  of 
the  gospel  never  found  it  out,  or  if  they  did  they 
thought  them  not  worth  recording. 

On  pages  100-102  of  the  Gospel  of  Buddha, 
Buddha  tells  his  disciples  how  to  live.    He  says: 

"An  ordained  disciple  must  not  commit  any  unchaste 
act.  The  disciple  who  commits  an  unchaste  act  is  no 
longer  a  disciple  of  Shakvamuni.  (The  word  Sbakya- 
muni  means  the  Sage,  or  the  Buddha.) 

'An  ordained  disciple  must  not  take  what  has  not 
been  given  him.  The  disciple  who  takes,  be  it  s©  lit- 
tle as  a  penny's  worth,  is  no  longer  a  disciple  of  Shak- 
yamuni. 

"An  ordained  disciple  must  not  knowingly  and  ma- 
lignantly deprive  any  harmless  creature  of  life,  not 
even  an  earth-worm  or  an  ant.  The  disciple  who 
knowingly  and  malignantly  deprives  any  harmless 
creature  of  life  is  no  longer  a  disciple  of  Shakyamuni. 

"An  ordained  disciple  must  not  boast  of  any  super- 
human perfection.  A  disciple  who,  with  evil  intent 
and  from  covetousness  boasts  of  superhuman  perfec- 
tion, be  it  celestial  visions,  or  miracles,  is  no  longer  a 
disciple  of  Shakyamuni." 

In  talking  of  evil  he  said: 

''Killing,  my  friends,  is  evil;  stealing  is  evil;  yielding 
to  sexual    passion  is    evil;  lying    is    evil;    slandering  is 


422  THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

e^^il;  envy  is  evil;  hatred  is  evil;  to  cling  to  false  doc- 
trines is  evil;  all  these  things,  my  friends  are  evil." 

On  what  is  good  he  said: 

"Abstaining  from  theft  is  good;  abstaining  from  sen- 
suality is  good;  abstaining  from  slander  is  good;  sup- 
pression from  unkindness  is  good;  abandoning  gossip 
is  good:  dismissing  hatred  is  good;  all  these  things  are 
good." 

He  speaks  on'  the  abolition  of  suffering  as 
follows: 

"And  what,  0  Brethren  is  the  path  that  leads  to 
the  annihilation  of  suffering?  It  is  the  holy  eight-fold 
path  that  leads  to  the  annihilation  of  suffering,  which 
consists  of  right  views,  right  decision,  right  speech, 
right  action,  right  living,  right  thoughts,  and  right 
meditation." 

Among  the  things  to  avoid  Buddha  gives  the 
following: 

I.  "Kill  not,  but  have  regard  for  life. 

II.  "Steal  not,  neither  do  3'e  rob;  but  help  every- 
body to  be  master  of  the  fruits  of  his  labor. 

III.  "Abstain  from  impurity,  and  lead  a  life  of 
chastit\^ 

IV.  "Lie  not,  but  be  truthful.  Speak  truth  with 
discretion,  fearless,  and  in  a  loving  heart. 

Y.  "Invent  not  evil  reports,  neither  do  ye  repeat 
them.  Carp  not,  but  look  for  the  good  sides  of  your 
fellow  beings,  so  that  j'-ou  may  with  sincerity  defend 
them  from  their  enemies. 

YI.    "Swear  not,  but  speak  decently  and  with  dignity. 

YII.  "Waste  not  the  time  with  gossip,  but  speak  to 
the  purpose  or  keep  silence. 

YIII.  "Covet  not,  nor  envy,  but  rejoice  at  the  for- 
tunes of  other  people. 


OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS.  423 

IX.  "Cleanse  your  heart  of  malice  and  cherish  no 
hatred,  not  even  against  your  enemies;  but  ei7-^brace 
all  living  beings  with  kindness. 

X.  "Free  your  mind  of  ignorance,  and  be  anxious 
to  learn  the  truth,  especially  in  the  one  thing  needed, 
lost  you  fall  a  prey  either  to  skepticism  or  to  errors. 
Skepticism  will  make  j'-ou  indifterent,  and  errors  will 
lead  3^ou  astraj^  so  that  you  shall  not  find  the  noble 
path  that  leads  to  life." 

Following  this  I  might  add  five  of  the  Bud- 
dhistic Ten  Commandments.  A  few  of  them 
seem  like  a  repetition  of  some  of  the  above. 

1.  "Thou  shalt  not  take  life.  2.  Thou  shalt  not 
steal.  3.  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adviltery,  nor  any 
impurity.  4.  Thou  shalt  not  lie.  5.  Thou  shalt  not 
intoxicate  thyself." 

Prof.  Max  Muller  translates  from  Dhamapada 
as  follows: 

"If  a  man  live  an  hundred  3'ears  and  spend  the 
whole  of  his  life  in  religious  attention  and  offering  to 
the  gods,  sacrificing  elephants  and  horses.  (These  \vere 
the  most  costly  offerings  that  could  be  made,)  all  this 
is  not  equal  to  one  act  of  pure  love  in  saving  life." 

"Not  in  the  void  of  heaven;  not  in  the  depths  of  the 
sea; — not  in  any  of  these  places,  nor  133'  an^^  means 
can  man  escape  the  consequences  of  his  evil  deeds." 

"A  man  who  foolishly  does  me  wrong,  (or  regards 
me  as  doing  wrong,)  I  will  return  him  the  protection 
of  my  ungrudging  love;  the  more  evil  goes  from  him, 
the  more  good  shall  go  from  me  to  him.  The  fragrance 
of  these  good  actions  always  redounding  to  me,  the 
harm  of  the  slanderer's  words  returning  to  him." 

"Hatred  does  not  cease  by  hatred  at  an3^  time;  ha- 
tred ceases  by  love." 

On  thought  Buddha  has  the  following: 


424     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

"All  that  we  are  is  the  result  of  what  we  have 
thought;  it  is  fouirded  on  our  thoughts.  If  a  man 
speaks  or  acts  with  an  evil  thought,  pain  follows  him, 
as  the  wheel  follows  the  foot  of  him  who  draws  the 
carriage.  *  *  *  If  a  man  speaks  or  acts  with  pure 
thought  happiness  follows  him  like  a  shadow  that 
never  leaves  him. 

'As  a  fetcher  makes  straight  his  arrow  a  wise  man 
makes  straight  his  trembling  and  unsteady  thought, 
which  is  difficult  to  keep,  difficult  to  turn. 

"Let  the  wise  man  guard  his  thoughts,  for  they  are 
diificult  to  perceive,  very  artful,  and  rush  wherever 
they  list;  thoughts  well  guarded  bring  happiness. 

"Those  who  bridle  their  mind,  which  travels  far 
moves  about  alone,  is  without  body,  and  hides  in  the 
chamber  of  the  heart,  will  be  free  from  the  bonds  of 
Mara.     (The  Tempter.) 

"He  who  lives  looking  for  pleasure  only,  his  senses, 
imcontrolled;  immoderate  in  his  enjoyments,  idle  and 
weak,  Mara  (The  Temper)  will  certainly  overcome  him, 
£ts  the  wind  blows  down  a  tree. 

"He  who  lives  without  looking  for  pleasure,  his 
senses  well  controlled,  his  enjoyments  moderate,  who 
is  faithful  and  strong,  Mara  will  certainly  not  over- 
come him  any  more  than  the  wind  overthrows  a 
rocky  mountain. 

"As  rain  breaks  through  an  ill  thatched  house,  pas- 
sion will  break  through  an  unreflecting  mind.  As  rain 
does  not  break  through  a  well  thatched  house,  passion 
does  not  break  through  a  well-reflecting  mind. 

"A  virtuous  man  delights  in  this  world,  and  he  de- 
lights in  the  next.  He  delights,  he  rejoices  when  he 
sees  the  purity  of  his  own  work. 

"The  evil  doer  suffers  in  this  world,  and  he  suffers  in 
the  next.     He  suffers  wVien  he  tViinks  of  the  evil  he  has 


OTHER  SACRKD  BODKS.  425 

done;  he  suffers    more    when    going   in    the    evil  path, 
"The  thoughtless  man,  even  if  he    can   recite  a  large 

portion  of  law,  but  is  not  a  doer  of  it  has  no  share  in 

the    priesthood,    but    is    Hke  a  cowherd    counting   the 

cows  of  others. 

"He  whose  evil  deeds  are  covered  up  by  good  deeds 

brightens  up  this  world  Hke  the  moon  when  she  rises 

from  behind  the  clouds. 
"Let  a  man  overcome  evil  by  good,    the    greedy    by 

liberality,  the  liar  by  the  truth." 

SOCRATES. 

Socrates,  the  Athenian  Philosopher  w^as  one  of 
the  great  Bible-makers  of  the  world.  His  inspir- 
ations were  as  pure  as  ever  came  to  mortals. 
His  recorded  prayer  was: 

"O,  beloved  Pan,  and  all  ye  other  gods  of  the  place, 
grant  me  to  become  beautiful  in  the  inward  man,  and 
that  whatsoever  things  I  may  have  may  be  at  peace 
with  those  within. 

"Ma3'  I  deem  the  wise  man  rich,  and  may  I  have 
such  portion  of  gold  as  none  but  a  prudent  man  can 
either  bear  or  employ.  (Do  we  need  anything  else 
Phaedris?)  For  m3'self  I  have  prayed  enough." 

What  could  be  more  sublime  than  this  pra^-er 
for  internal  beauty?  and  what  more  appropriate 
than  to  ask  that  his  outward  life  might  corres- 
pond? Where  are  there  greater,  more  enjoj^able 
riches  than  that  expressed  in  this  prayer?  '*AIay 
I  deem  the  wise  man  rich?"  As  far  as  worldly 
riches  are  concerned,  he  wanted  no  more  than  a 
prudent  man  could  bear  or  employ.  What  a 
lesson  for  the  grasping,  money-grabbing  Christ- 
ian of  today! 


426      THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

On    the    subject     of    Immortality,    the    said: 

"There  is,  I  know  not  how,  in  the    minds  or"  men,  a 

certain  presage,  as  it  were,  of  a  future    existence;    and 

this  takes  the  deepest  root,  and  is  most    discoverable, 

in  the  greatest  geniuses,  and  the  most  exalted  souls." 

The  speech  of  Socrates,  to  his  judges,  at  the 
time  he  received  his  sentence  of  death  is  one  of 
the  finest  things  ever  translated  into  the  English 
lang-uage.  I  can  only  make  brief  extracts  from 
it. 

"Those  who  think  that  death  is  an  evil  are  in  error. 
*  *  *  But  if  death  is  the  journey  to  another  place,  and 
there,  as  many  say,  all  the  dead  are;  what  good,  O, 
m^^  friends  can  be  greater  than  this?  If,  indeed,  when 
the  pilgrim  arrives  in  the  world  below,  he  is  delivered 
from  the  professors  of  justice  in  this  world,  and  finds 
the  true  judges,  v.''ho  are  said  to  give  judgment  there, 
Minos  and  Rhadamanthus  and  Acus  and  Triptolmeus, 
and  other  sons  of  God,  who  were  righteous  in  their 
own  life,  the  pilgrimage  w^ill  be  worth  making.  What 
would  a  man  not  give  if  he  might  converse  with  Or- 
pheus and  Musaus,  and  Hesiod  and  Homer?  Nav,  if 
this  be  true,  let  me  die  again  and  again.  I,  too  shall 
have  a  wonderful  interest  in  a  place  where  I  can  con- 
verse with  Palamades  and  Ajax,  the  son  of  Telamon, 
and  other  heroes  of  old,  who  have  suffered  death 
through  unjust  judgment;  and  there  will  be  no  small 
pleasure  I  think  in  comparing  my  sufferings  with 
theirs.  Above  all  I  shall  be  able  to  continue  mj^  search 
into  true  and  false  knowledge;  as  in  this  world,  so  also 
in  that;  I  shall  find  out  who  is  wise,  and  who  pretends 
to  be  wise  and  is  not. 

"What  would  not  a  man  give,  O  judges,  to  be  able 
to  examine    the   leader    of  the    Trojan    expedition;   or 


OTHER   SACRED   BOOKS.  427 

Odysseus  or  Sysyphits,  or  numberless  others,  men  and 
women  too.  What  infinite  delight  would  there  be  in 
conversing  with  them  and  asking  them  questions!  For, 
in  that  world  they  do  not  put  a  man  to  death  for 
this;  certainly  not.  For  besides  being  happier  in  that 
world  than  in  this,  they  will  be  immortal,  if  what  is 
said  be  true. 

"Wherefore,  O  judges  be  of  good  cheeer  about  death, 
and  know  this  of  a  truth;  that  no  evil  can  happen  to 
a  good  man,  either  in  life  or  after  death.  He  and  his 
are  not  neglected  by  the  gods;  nor  has  my  approach- 
ing end  happened  to  me  by  mere  chance;  but  I  see 
clearly  that  to  die  and  be  released  was  better  for 
me.  *  *  *  They  have  done  me  no  harm  although 
neither  of  them  mean  to  do  me  any  good;  and  for 
this  I  msLj  genth'  blame  them. 

"Still  1  have  a  favor  to  ask  of  them.  When  my 
sons  are  grown  up  I  would  ask  you,  O  my  friends,  to 
punish  them;  and  I  would  have  you  trouble  them,,  as 
I  have  troubled  you,  if  they  seem  to  care  about  riches, 
or  anything  more  than  about  virtue;  or  if  thej'  pre- 
tend to  be  something  when  they  realh'-  are  nothing. 
And  if  you  do  this,  I  and  my  sons  will  have  received 
justice  at  jonr  hands.  The  hour  of  departure  has  ar- 
rived, and  we  go  our  wa3's — I  to  die,  and  you  to  live. 
Which  is  better,  God  only  knows." 

I  have  many  pages  from  Socrates  as  good  as 
the  foregoing  but  cannot  make  room  for  them. 

MOHAMMEDANISM— THE   KORAN. 

The  Mohammedan  religion  is  full  of  good 
things;  I  can  only  make  a  few  extracts  from  "he 
Koran. 

"None  of  you  can  be  a  true  believer  until  he  loves  in 
his  neighbor  what  he  loves  in  himself? 


428     THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

**Veri1v,  he  is  rije^hteous  who  believes  in  God,  the  day 
of  jiidgnient,  in  the  angels,  and  the  book  and  the 
prophets;  who  bestows  his  wealth  for  God's  sake  upo» 
kindred  and  orphans  and  the  poor,  and  the  homeless, 
and  all  of  those  who  ask,  and  also  upon  delivering 
the  captives;  who  is  steadfast  in  prayer,  who  giveth 
alms,  who  staudeth  firmly  by  his  covenants,  when  he 
has  once  firmly  entered  into  them;  and  who  is  patient 
in  adversity,  in  hardship,  and  in  times  of  trial.  These 
are  righteous  and  God-fearing. 

"Turn  away  evil  by  that  which  is  better — as  anger  by 
patience,  and  ignorance  by  mildness,  and  evil  conduct 
by  forgiveness,  and  lo,  he  between  whom  and  thyself 
was  enmity  shall  become  as  though  he  was  a  warm 
friend. 

"Give  orphans  when  they  come  of  age  their  substance, 
and  render  them  not  in  exchange,  bad  for  good;  and 
devour  not  their  substance  by  adding  it  to  your  own; 
for  this  is  a  great  sin. 

"Those  who  believe  and  do  that  which  is  right,  we 
will  bring  into  gardens  watered  hj  rivers;  therein  shall 
they  remain  forever. 

"Meddle  not  with  the  substance  of  the  orphan,  unless 
it  be  to  improve  it..  Perform  your  covenant;  and  give 
full  measure  when  you  measure  aught,  and  weigh  with 
a  just  balance." 

The  following  are  Mohammedan  inscriptions. 

"The  world  was  given   us   for  our  own   edification; 

"Not  for  the  purpose  of  raising  sumptuous  buildings; 

"Life  for  the  discharge  of  moral  and  religious  duties; 
"Not  for  pleasurable  indulgence; 
Wealth  to  be  liberally  bestowed; 
Not  avariciously  hoarded; 
And  learning  to  produce  good  actions; 
Not  empty  disputes." 


OTHER  SACRED  BOOKS.  4.29 

Whittier  said: 

'•All  souls  that  struggle  and  aspire, 

All  hearts  of  prayer  by  thee  are  lit;  ^ 
And,  dim  or  clear,  thy    tongues  of  fire 
On  duskv  tribes  and  centuries  sit." 


DATE  DUE 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  iSI  U.S.A. 

